The many names of God

@Flamvell Rose,

Flamvell Rose;104098 wrote:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, (it seems that) the names applied to God are synonymous names, meaning that these names mean exactly the same thing about his goodness and wisdom. Though it is said that these names are the same in reality but different in idea, I believe that it is contrary. Those from many religions ultimately worship the same being that we call "God", but because because a few ideas are differed believe that their religion is infact the correct and only religion that should be lived by. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Interesting.

I think that the many names, properties and definitions of god - that people have come up with for as long as they've been able - are telling of the struggle to come up with something that can be called god. To your question, I'd reply that many are so similar that they could refer to the same entity; but no, on the whole and given the vast difference in concepts, many are mutually exclusive (so to say "all refer to the same thing" wouldn't be correct)

And nowadays we've got such mental contortions as:[INDENT]God is all! (my personal favorite, always good for a chuckle)
God is information
God is stuff
God is energy
God is all things and no things simultaneously
... and so on.
[/INDENT]So no, I'd say that (assuming we apply any sort of reason) all definitions couldn't refer to the same thing/concept/ice cream flavor - they're simply too divergent.

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;104435 wrote:

isnt it ironic, from that god's point of view (or those gods' points of view) how funny people must look worshiping someone who doesnt even exist?

Well, we can look for things that do not exist; we can hope for things that do not exist; we can think about things that do not exist; we can believe in what does not exist; so it would not be ironic or funny to worship what does not exist. Philosophers call such verbs as "look for" or "hope for" "intensional" (with an 's') whose objects need not exist, as contrasted with "extensional" verbs whose objects have to exist. For example, the verb "to hit". I cannot hit what does not exist: I cannot hang what does not exist.

It is interesting that intensional verbs are mental verbs, but extensional verbs are physical verbs, and intensionality has often been thought of as the mark of the mental.

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

Surely everyone knows the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Just because the blind men give different descriptions does not mean there is no elephant!

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;104526 wrote:

Surely everyone knows the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Just because the blind men give different descriptions does not mean there is no elephant!

That is true. But why do you think that is how it is with God? It doesn't follow from there being different descriptions of X that there is no X. On the other hand, it does not follow that there is an X. Nothing follows.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;104475 wrote:

I'll quote the above--in stepping stone fashion--but am responding to the thread in general.

OK, I kind of jumped, thinking that most will have known what I had skipped . . . I may have been mistaken to do so. A thorough check on the English word "God," will show us that it was a common noun which had been capitalized so as to stand in place of the proper noun (a personal name) for the god of the Old Testament, viz. YHWH (otherwise read as Yahweh, Yehovah, Jehovah, or possibly Yahwoo)(1)

The English word "God," then came into being as a proper noun, a personal name of that Jewish god. The description/prescription of this particular god will be found in the works which do just that--describe and prescribe that god. Regardless of whatever similarities may be clearly found, alluded to, or deduced indirectly, the specific descriptions entailed as descriptions of YHWH, YHWH's said, specifically expressed sayings, specifically executed actions, and especially given law code and prophecy (all which simultaneously prescribe YHWH), will most clearly demonstrate that YHWH is not Baal, is not Dagon, is not Rah, is not Zeus, is not a trinity of any nature, is not Allah (as described/prescribed by Islamic works), is not the sun, and so on and so forth.

kennethamy is correct. The differences are fatal. YHWH very specifically states that there is only one true god, YHWH himself, among any number of gods. YHWH very specifically states that his name is YHWH, and there is no other. YHWH gave very specific and expressed terms of worship which only, he will accept, and which mostly amounted to a legal code with a formal ceremonious practice. YHWH made it pretty clear that he would especially bless only the seed of Issac, and not that of Ishmael, nor those of other nations. It is clear enough, without stronger rebut, that YWHW is not the god called by later, early Christians. It is very clear, without rebut, that YHWH is not the god who called on Mohammad.

Each god-model has a body of data which builds that god-model (description/prescription). To afterwards describe and know that previously described/prescribed deity, one has to go by the data source which does so. By doing that, we will find that just because one religious belief-system has a single deity, and any other religious belief-system may have a single deity, it does not mean that we can automatically see the separate god-models as being one and the same god-model--the data bases will show that the models are mutually exclusive.

1. The short form is Yah, or Jah--as seen the phrase 'hallalujah,' or the name Yeshua, etc.

thiis would only be relevant if you were to take the scriptures and heresay as to what the prophets said (and in many cases hearsay that those prophets even ever lived) as a base for your description of who god is.

if you want to do that, the qur'an states that the god of israel is one and the same as Allah, and that Mohammad was sent to restore the teachings that had become corrupted by people as well as amend some of them to remove certain restrictions. in the qur'an it is also written that Abraham (the father of both Israel, aka Jacob, and Ishmael) was the father of the islamic religion, and a muslim. if i am paraphrasing correctly, it states that all the most beautiful names belong to Allah and to call him by those names. it never really says his name is allah, but "your (everyone's) god is Allah". it definitely stresses the idea that Allah is undivided, has no partners.

it is the concepts that are different, not what they represent. and in the case of god, what they represent cannot be known directly by very many people, so it can only be a matter of conjecture or conviction.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;104562 wrote:

That is true. But why do you think that is how it is with God? It doesn't follow from there being different descriptions of X that there is no X. On the other hand, it does not follow that there is an X. Nothing follows.

It does not follow that the fact that the different traditions have different descriptions means they are not all attempting to describe the same "reality". And although it is not a direct discussion about the existence of; or reality of; "god" ones position on that issue is reflected in ones attitude about whether all religions are flawed attempts to describe the same "god".
God is too big for one religion. All descriptions of god are too small.

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;104567 wrote:

thiis would only be relevant if you were to take the scriptures and heresay as to what the prophets said (and in many cases hearsay that those prophets even ever lived) as a base for your description of who god is.

Yes, this is most very true, and is the very point which demonstrates most securely, that the god-models are not all the same models. Those who described/prescribed these separate models (the religious soothsayers, sage-types, priests, and so on), we know for a fact took their assertions and claims to be true descriptions of a factual entity (being, personage). The test of time has shown their assertions and claims to be false, but the models we have in the data bases which the particular religious belief-systems have left for us.

salima;104567 wrote:

it is the concepts that are different, not what they represent. and in the case of god, what they represent cannot be known directly by very many people, so it can only be a matter of conjecture or conviction.

Here, I'd agree with one element (or direction of thought, if you will), but not another. In that, for example, the god-model which the Jewish religious belief-system compiled over time--up to the Second Temple Period at least--has failed the test of time and acquired knowledge of nature at large, we readily reach the conclusion that the primary concept seen in the description/prescription which defines YHWH, is, as you have pointed out, the concept of a god--and that alone is THE starting point.

In that way, each and every god-model that we will find, will go down to that point--humans have this concept of a deity of some sort, and through stretches of time from way back in time, have developed the several god-models. Most all systems gave proper names to their gods (this is plural because the word 'system' is plural), and most of these models mutually exclude all other models. In this way, it is inaccurate to say that each specifically-defined-by-the-specific-database named god, is equal to that of another spedifically-defined-by-the-specific-database named god, unless the databased descriptions exactly match.

prothero;104578 wrote:

It does not follow that the fact that the different traditions have different descriptions means they are not all attempting to describe the same "reality". And although it is not a direct discussion about the existence of; or reality of; "god" ones position on that issue is reflected in ones attitude about whether all religions are flawed attempts to describe the same "god".
God is too big for one religion. All descriptions of god are too small.

I very seriously doubt that you can successfully defend that with detail-in-facts. For starters, please go into a presentation on how the 'reality' of YHWH, as seen presented in OT can be describing the reality of Allah, as seen in the Koran and Sharia.

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;104602 wrote:

I very seriously doubt that you can successfully defend that with detail-in-facts. For starters, please go into a presentation on how the 'reality' of YHWH, as seen presented in OT can be describing the reality of Allah, as seen in the Koran and Sharia.

Well for starters, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all referred to as "people of the book" and Abraham is the ackowledge forefather or founder of all three faiths. Both the OT and the NT are accepted as sacred scripture in the Koran.. Jesus is accepted a a prophet and Mary as a virgin and both are revered in the Muslim faith. Mohammed is regarded as the final prophet with gods final revelation but not as the only prophet and not as the only revelation. The notion of god is much the same in these religions and Allah is not understood to be a new god or a different god only a new and better revelation of the "one true god."

Those who are looking for differences can find differences but all three of these faiths have a common basis and much in common.
God is creator, god is rational, god is moral and god is one in all three faiths. Going further many of these attributes of the divine are also found in eastern religous traditions. The dominant notion since the axial age the last major revision of religous thought is monotheism or monism. The dominant ethic is compassion or empathy. On the most fundamental and important points there is much in common.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;104602 wrote:

Yes, this is most very true, and is the very point which demonstrates most securely, that the god-models are not all the same models. Those who described/prescribed these separate models (the religious soothsayers, sage-types, priests, and so on), we know for a fact took their assertions and claims to be true descriptions of a factual entity (being, personage). The test of time has shown their assertions and claims to be false, but the models we have in the data bases which the particular religious belief-systems have left for us.

the test of time has shown all the assertions and claims of all the prophets in history to be false? i know you said soothsayers, are they the same as prophets by your definition?

no, let's not go there and get all tangled up in definitions! for the time being, let's disqualify the term sage or priest. (they are not the authorities).

let me put it this way: are you saying that all the claims and assertions of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad have been proven false? or even one or two of them? if you, please make a short list...i cant think of any offhand, myself.

1 Reply

@salima,

KaseiJin;104602 wrote:

I very seriously doubt that you can successfully defend that with detail-in-facts. For starters, please go into a presentation on how the 'reality' of YHWH, as seen presented in OT can be describing the reality of Allah, as seen in the Koran and Sharia.

YHWH is portrayed in the OT as the True Agent of the universe. Thus, it is the same reality as all other monotheistic faiths. It is the specifics that are different. Jews may well attribute a certain characteristic to The God to which Christians and Muslims would respond with 'No, I believe you are mistaken.' But they would still accept that they are talking about the same God.

prothero;104604 wrote:

Well for starters, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all referred to as "people of the book" and Abraham is the ackowledge forefather or founder of all three faiths. Both the OT and the NT are accepted as sacred scripture in the Koran.. Jesus is accepted a a prophet and Mary as a virgin and both are revered in the Muslim faith. Mohammed is regarded as the final prophet with gods final revelation but not as the only prophet and not as the only revelation. The notion of god is much the same in these religions and Allah is not understood to be a new god or a different god only a new and better revelation of the "one true god."

Just a slight correction on this: Muslims consider the Torah of Moses, Psalms of David and the Gospel of Jesus (peace be upon them all) to be revelations from God. Muslims don't regard the writings of St Paul, for example, as inspired from God. Since these scriptures of these Prophets have been mixed in with words of men, the OT and NT and not reliable anymore. The Qur'an is regarded as the only uncorrupted revelation of God. But Muslims do consider Jews and Christians as People of the Book.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;104604 wrote:

Well for starters, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all referred to as "people of the book" and Abraham is the ackowledge forefather or founder of all three faiths. Both the OT and the NT are accepted as sacred scripture in the Koran.. Jesus is accepted a a prophet and Mary as a virgin and both are revered in the Muslim faith. Mohammed is regarded as the final prophet with gods final revelation but not as the only prophet and not as the only revelation. The notion of god is much the same in these religions and Allah is not understood to be a new god or a different god only a new and better revelation of the "one true god."

Yes, from the view of a religious belief-system which got kick started in the 7th century CE, that is exactly the doctrine. Now, if you'd go back, and read the writing of Josephus, and the Qumran scrolls, as well as the Hebrew scrolls of the Palestinian canon, you will without any doubt whatsoever, discover that the YHWH model cannot be anything other than the fullness that the data base (mentioned above) describes/prescribes YHWH to be.

salima;104605 wrote:

let me put it this way: are you saying that all the claims and assertions of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad have been proven false? or even one or two of them? if you, please make a short list...i cant think of any offhand, myself.

Let me try to clarify, without going too much farther, actually, in to the 'off topic' zone, here. As of the second century CE, we have a very good record of the scrolls of the Palestinian canon--plus some--including translations into Greek (LXX). Now, how can we actually verify that a person named Abraham actually lived--as depicted exactly in those writings? In all truthfulness, we cannot not. How can we verify that there was an actual historical person named Samson, who did exactly as had been portrayed in the writings describing him? Again, we simply cannot.

Therefore, in the very same and exact way of thinking, how can we actually determine by valid evidence that there had been an actual, and determinable by historical evidence, immaterial being, as exactly described by the specifics of the writings which describe that being, who had interacted with those who had written those writings, and their contemporaries, in exactly the specified manner that that being (YWHW) is said to have acted? Again, we can't--except by testing things related to the known and knowable portion of nature at large against the knowledge portrayed in those same writings. The same will hold true for writings dealing with Yeshua (otherwise called Jesus in English), and the writings attributed to Mohammad.

Thus, I am more specifically not saying that all claims in the written works are false, because that is most obviously not the case--it is of course, a very natural human social matter of understanding that giving is better than receiving . . . for example--but I am saying (especially as pertains to this thread) that the full description of YHWH, in the writings which describe and give personality (and all that entails 'physically,' mentally, habitually, actively, and so on) to that god, will not leave us with a god which fits the description of the god described by the RCC, nor with a description that will leave us with a god described by the Koran. They are three, different and distinct gods. (although only YHWH has an actual name [which early first century Christians probably used in written form . . . and when I say early, I mean prior to 40 CE.])

josh0335;104612 wrote:

YHWH is portrayed in the OT as the True Agent of the universe. Thus, it is the same reality as all other monotheistic faiths. It is the specifics that are different. Jews may well attribute a certain characteristic to The God to which Christians and Muslims would respond with ‘No, I believe you are mistaken.’ But they would still accept that they are talking about the same God.

I tend to think there is a problem here, however. How can it be that three differing described characteristics of three gods, will then leave the adherents of the three agreeing that they were talking about the same god. Do we not have plenty of history, validly enough recorded, to tell us that that has not been the case at all !! We must not forget that we a fix chronological descent through time.

The god described and put on high by mainstream Christianity in the fourth century CE, would absolutely not allow any additionally added new god descriptions which denied admitting in worship that faith in Yeshua, as the very son of the 'father' (formerly YHWH, but forgotten by then, by them), was the only way to salvation. That alone closes the case about those Christians being able to admit to the model put forth by Mohammad as being the same 'father.' However, if the Koran had fully used the Tetragrammaton, and the Mosaic Law, we might have a slightly different story. (and of course, there is no question at all that all these works were written by human beings, to fit the needs and circumstances of the humans who had developed the models, within the cultural settings of their time period.

In conclusion, the gods are not the same because the models are not the same. In that they are all 'gods,' and to that degree alone, they are all the same--as every single 'god' every imagined by the H. sapiens and the lineages before them (to a degree) is the same in holding this definition of the office of 'godship.'

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;104635 wrote:

I tend to think there is a problem here, however. How can it be that three differing described characteristics of three gods, will then leave the adherents of the three agreeing that they were talking about the same god. Do we not have plenty of history, validly enough recorded, to tell us that that has not been the case at all !! We must not forget that we a fix chronological descent through time.

The god described and put on high by mainstream Christianity in the fourth century CE, would absolutely not allow any additionally added new god descriptions which denied admitting in worship that faith in Yeshua, as the very son of the 'father' (formerly YHWH, but forgotten by then, by them), was the only way to salvation. That alone closes the case about those Christians being able to admit to the model put forth by Mohammad as being the same 'father.' However, if the Koran had fully used the Tetragrammaton, and the Mosaic Law, we might have a slightly different story. (and of course, there is no question at all that all these works were written by human beings, to fit the needs and circumstances of the humans who had developed the models, within the cultural settings of their time period.

In conclusion, the gods are not the same because the models are not the same. In that they are all 'gods,' and to that degree alone, they are all the same--as every single 'god' every imagined by the H. sapiens and the lineages before them (to a degree) is the same in holding this definition of the office of 'godship.'

you are assuming that there is no god being described anyway, kj, and i think that is a premise that sets your reasoning going in a certain direction. in fact, how can you even have an opinion as to whether or not the gods of the three abrahamic religions are the same or not when you are certain there is no such being?

what i am trying to point out is that if we accept the possibility that there may be a god behind these three religions, (and i mention only those now for the sake of simplicity, not meaning to leave out all the other possible gods the human psyche has worshipped), how can we determine if it is one and the same, or is it possible there are in fact three different gods claiming to be the only one, or has god changed over time, or was there one god who went away and another took over until he left and then a third appeared...

and my thoughts are that the only thing we have to go by is that what the prophets who claimed to have direct communication with him said. and why should we limit ourselves to the generally accepted prophets, let us also include anyone who claimed to have had revelation from that god or any god, even down to the drunk on the corner sharing his personal revelations with an imaginary crowd.

and what would we use to determine which if any of them had actually been in contact with a deity? i would say it would be how many of the things they said had not been proven wrong in the course of time, as you suggested earlier. granted, we dont know if there was a Moses or Jacob or Jesus as a matter of historical record, though we do know there was a Mohammad and exactly who he was and his line of ancestry. but let us for the sake of argument assume that they did in fact exist, and use what sources we have to see if what they were purported to say was ever proven false.

to find out what these characters, whether real or fictional, had said we can only go to the scriptures. i dont know about those scrolls you mention, and it is difficult to say which are genuine. but you could certainly start with the taurat, the gospels, and the koran, comparing the stories of Moses, Abraham, Solomon and Jesus.

i dont know what you would find, and actually i am all worn out from thinking all that up, so i am not looking into it myself...but i really do believe that what you will find is that you cant prove anything either way. the only person who really knows the answer is that person or persons who has or have actually been directly in contact with a deity. no, i retract that-the only one who would know the answer would be the deity itself, because even the prophets could have been hallucinating and should not take their own experience as evidence.

but faith is funny that way...somehow conviction happens when there is no corroborating proof.

1 Reply

@salima,

Thanks for that nice post there, salima chan.

salima;104684 wrote:

you are assuming that there is no god being described anyway, kj, and i think that is a premise that sets your reasoning going in a certain direction. in fact, how can you even have an opinion as to whether or not the gods of the three abrahamic religions are the same or not when you are certain there is no such being?

To clarify, if I can, I am very much saying that a god is being described by, for example, the Tanakh. Then, in cross examining claims and assertions made by those works about the personality, and frame of mind of that described god (in this case YHWH), as well as what those writings give as that described god's interaction with humans on earth, and so on, I am saying that we have what we can call a model.

Then, it is because of that very fixed model, that we can understand that any model with does not fit that model quite exactly--and most especially, in personal name as that model is said to have taught its worshipers--is not the same model, and thus, not the same god. I am not talking about any external reality at this point--but could, actually. I am only going by what is written in the works held in esteem by the various religious belief-systems.

salima;104684 wrote:

what i am trying to point out is that if we accept the possibility that there may be a god behind these three religions, (and i mention only those now for the sake of simplicity, not meaning to leave out all the other possible gods the human psyche has worshipped), how can we determine if it is one and the same, . . . [/color=darkorange](bold mine9[/color]

Yes, the answer to that question in bold, as I have been arguing all along basically, is only by looking at the writings, the works which the several religious belief-systems have left us with. There is no other way, because we simply do not see, on a universal scale, evidence that any described by those belief-systems (and we have to go in chronological order here) gods are communicating with, interacting with, and/or working for life in the universe (and we pretty much only have the earth, for now . . . out of ALL that is this universe).

However, again, for the purpose of this thread, actually, we do not need to agree to make any working assumptions that there might be some real and factual to the external universe god out there. All we have to do is look at those writings and see if they mostly tell us the same things about the important details.

Now, as you have clearly pointed out, we would find a good exercise in very carefully checking over what the texts say, and compare such claims and statements against the fair average of knowledge about nature and history which we have today. This thread, of course, would not be the place for that, and I do have a long-left-silent thread pretty much for just that thing . . . so I will try to bring that back up. However, this will have to be a detailed thing. I cannot speak much at all for the Koran, but for the Hebrew texts and Greek texts, I can. I have the original tongue texts, and know fairly understand the languages (and of course have the grammers and lexicons).

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

Flamvell Rose;104098 wrote:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, (it seems that) the names applied to God are synonymous names, meaning that these names mean exactly the same thing about his goodness and wisdom. Though it is said that these names are the same in reality but different in idea, I believe that it is contrary. Those from many religions ultimately worship the same being that we call "God", but because because a few ideas are differed believe that their religion is infact the correct and only religion that should be lived by. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Personally, I believe that there is a single entity which is God and that God is the same independent of the various manifestations it is worshiped under by the various religions and various theistic groups and individuals.

In regard to ethnocentrism in religions, I think that has more to do with human psychology than then the differences in names or practices. I think it's human nature to be inherently ethnocentric when only facing one belief system - one's own.

In other words, if someone grows up in a religious tradition, is surrounded by members of that tradition, and gains a positive association with the tradition - and - most importantly, has little or no objective exposure to other traditions or systems, then that person is very likely to develop an ethnocentric belief about their own faith.

This doesn't just apply to religion; it applies to politics, culture, food, sexuality, etc, etc.

It is only when one experiences positive contact with another institution that they become capable of being objective and, perhaps, seeing that ethnocentric belief can be misplaced. That's my take on it.

--IntoTheLight--

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

Okay, the many names of G-d is a concept borrowed from the kabbalah, whatever Aquinas had to say on the subject(forgive me for considering acquinas in cahoots with the gnostic/sufic mentality, after all, he did attend Frederick II university in sicily and anyone acquainted with Frederick knows he studied kabbalah, averroism(ie; the doctrine of emenations, an idea taken from the kabbalah, which was then known under a different name). He was also a relative of frederick through the hohenstaufen dyansty.

The different "names" of G-d refer to an attribute G-d possesses. In kabbalah its represented as the 10 sefirot. The building blocks of creation. Each name used for G-d, reflects a power G-d uses between himself and creation. Elohim for instance, refers to G-ds power to conceal himself. Which is why Elohim has the same gematria(numerical value) as Hateva(nature ie; the power which conceals G-ds presence). This name is synonymous with the sefirah(attribute) of Malkhut, G-ds kingship. Another name used is Adonai(meaning lord, ie; G-d lordship over creation. The latter name Elohim is considered anterior to Adonai, another name of G-d. In the sense that creation(man) must first acknowledge G-ds presence in creation despite the concealing faculty of Elohim before G-ds attribute of Adonai reigns(which is why Jews refer to the Tetragrammaton in speech as adonai). Elohim is also the name used in the beginning of genesis when describing the creation of the world. Again alluding to this power being involved with the creation of material reality.

The Tetragrammaton, YHVH, is the name associated with G-ds essence, which in Kabbalah is associated with the sefira of Tiferet(beauty/compassion). This is the name most often used in the Tanakh for G-d. Signifying g-ds compassion for creation. Ironic

Other names like El(associated with chesed, G-ds attribute of Love), El Shaddai, EHYH, etc all parallel a sefira.

As for the pagan ie non jewish conception of g-d, this is where it gets tricky. My theory(based on my understanding of neoplatonism/gnosticsm/hermeticism/sufism/vedanta) is that their God is not the G-d YHVH of the Tanakh. The G-d responsible for the creation of reality is YHVH(an understanding of this name shows that all creation is literally rooted back to this name. Its 4 letters correspond to the 4 kabbalistic worlds, the prototype for Jungs 4 functions, intuition/atzilut, Thinking/Breyah, Feeling/Yetzirah, and sensation/assiyah. The Yod is a simple point(non differentiated, like intuition), the Heh is the 'house' for the simple point of inuition, ie; thinking, breyah means creation, actual differentiated reality. The Vav is a long stick, yetzirah means formation, emotion. A stick reflects its being 'lowered' ie; felt by the physical body from the level of mind to body. and the final Heh reflects the final house. The Heh is feminine letter which corresponds to action/physical existence.

Anywho, This is how i break down the Pagan mentality. Mind you, all normal christians, Jews and muslims believe in the one true G-d YHVH. The Pagan, non Jewish god is the greek god zeus. Zeus was translated from Greek into Roman as Deus(the roman word for god). Interesting to note that deus in english has the connotation of 2. So, the Pagan god is inherently dual. Masculine/femine, conscious/unconscious. They literally conceive as YHVH as the masculine and the feminine(called in the tanakh as Ashera, in other cultures as ashtarte, astarte, Tara - The Tarot deck literally divines using 52 cards. tarot is a mutation of astarte. 52 is the expansion of the tetragrammaton using the final H, ie; the feminine. Hence why all card decks have 52, kelev, dog in hebrew, also has the gematria of 52. God in english, the same gematria as YHVH(26) is dog backwards..maybe a coincidence, maybe not.).

Anyways, so their mentality is the uniting of conscious and unconscious. This process is called by Jung individuation. Where the conscious mind integrates the dark aspects(which are feminine.unconscious) into the psyche. This literally means one is led by his unconscious self. or put differently, his own 'god'. In Greece it was represented as Hermes(the trickster, ie; hypocrite) or dionsyos. All the pagan religions of the past are litrally the same thing. A regarbing of the same belief system. Horus is christ. Christ interesting to note was born in a manger(the gematria of manger in Hebrew is 69 - the mystical understanding of 6 is terrestrial consciousness, the circle; representing mind, is low, while 9 represents divine consciousness, the risen man, where the circle is above and the line descends). Why do you think Christmas is celebrated in the first days of capricorn. Capricorn the goat represents arrogance. Pan, the devil, etc has always been depicted as a goat. Christ is 'born' out of first descending into hell(ie; his unconscious). The final integration is completed in nissan(about 3 months after capricorn/an allusion to the trinitarian philosophy. The first month of the astrological calendar, the ram - interesting to note that when the jews left egypt they sacrificed the Egyptian god, which was represnted by the ram, to serve YHVH. This means that mans highest powers will serve G-ds will as oppossed to his own). Aries being the first sign of the zodiac contains the other signs within him. Hence why easter falls on this date. Hence why Jesus is often depicted as holding a lamb around his neck in a loving manner in defiance of the cruel pharisees (i hope you see how deranged this story really is).

Jesus the man represents physical man. his father is G-d. These two symbols stand for spiritual and corporeal. The physical man Jesus was crucified on a cross only to rise 3 days later as the risen christ. Sad but true, But christs Hebrew name, Yeshua/salvation, means that Christ consciousness saves man from YHVH(ie; the mean G-d of the OLD testament) who tryanically forces man to do his will. His rising 3 days laters alludes to an integration of opposites, the unconscious with teh conscious; or said differently, evil with good. Apparently to pagans evil is not inherently bad but necessary to proper psychological functioning. This is also present in the East as the Tao(interesting to note that the jesuits translated Tao as Deu, meaning god). The transcendent function of Jung is christ(see Jungs 'Christ as a symbol for self')

Why do you think this philosopy is being hardcore promoted today? The new age is a ammalgamation of thse beliefs. It works so well because they all believe the same thing essentially. Alice baily a famous theosophist said only one obstacles stands in the way. The isolationist Jews. Perhaps this has something to do with all the persecution theyve faced ie egyptian bondage/babylonian/persian/ and roman(inquisition, crusades, pograms, and worst of all the holocaust - Nazism was also a mystical philosophy, mind you).

For those paying attention to politics, the name barrack obama means blessed(barack in hebrew) handsome(hussein in arabic means handsome, the middle name signifies the 'essence', sufism is obamas philosophy) leader(obama, the place where the leader stands). Interesting i would say. Also, this year might mark a very massive change in america. 233 is the gematria of Zakor(remember). The US is 233 years old. 233 ago america was in the midst of war(the war of indepence). Lotta rumors going around that america could descend into civil war very fast.

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 07:14 PM ----------

onlyone;105000 wrote:

Okay, the many names of G-d is a concept borrowed from the kabbalah, whatever Aquinas had to say on the subject(forgive me for considering acquinas in cahoots with the gnostic/sufic mentality, after all, he did attend Frederick II university in sicily and anyone acquainted with Frederick knows he studied kabbalah, averroism(ie; the doctrine of emenations, an idea taken from the kabbalah, which was then known under a different name). He was also a relative of frederick through the hohenstaufen dyansty.

Just so theres no confusion. The Torah for a non jew does not consist of the 613 mitzvot that a jew performs( i know this is off topic, interesting that 613 conceptually has the 6 to the left- 6 emotive powers of the sefirot, 3 to the right- the 3 intellectual powers of the sefirot, and the one between. In other words, my emotions(left signifies passive) will be sublimated by my intellect/understanding/conscious(right is active) to serve the one G-d. Whats the most often quoted verse in the new testament? john 3:16(the opposite of 613.) This accords with the pagan philosophy of the self or unconscious(or said differently, the emotions) controlling the mind. The 3 representing mind is to the left, the 6 representing emotions is to the right, and the 1 signifies the self, ones own 'god'. and the verse itself is
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Analyze that for a second. The self(god) so loved the world(physical existence) that he gave his only begotten son(his own physical self/existence), that whoever believed in the self would have eternal life

Another Nazish verse from the new testament is romans 13. 13 in hebrew is the gematria of echad(one). This is the verse quoted by tyrants(represented by romans) to subdue the masses so as to make them one with their goals.

These mitvot represent a very supernal level of service to G-d. A Non jew serves G-d by following the 7 noachide commandments and the 10 commandments. Also, the basic form of worship for a non Jew who follows YHVH and knows of the truth of the pagan philosophy is having G-d before you at all times. When you do so you accept G-ds yoke upon you. When you accept G-d he accepts you. and profoundly mystical things begin happening. His providence literally lays itself upon you. Consider it G-ds chastening you to follow and perform his mysterious will. Basic acts of kindness, showing understanding, patience, and most of humility. These are concepts foeign to the philosophy of the nations(pagans). Truly, they conceieve of reality as a pretentious play, where we are actors(puppets) being led by higher forces(the archetypes). Hence why alot of the TV shows movies you see is ALL propaganda. And has a mystical message to those privy/initiated to such secrets. If you ever saw stanly kubricks eyes wide shut you get a very clear idea of this with the pretentious masked ball(a masquerade). Very satanic stuff

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

The problem is, however, onlyone, that Cabala erred in favor of nonsense mysticism. Regarding the matter of names, as per the topic of the thread, that sect of medieval Jewish based occultism totally through into the fires of wishful thinking, secure linguistically and historically fixed concerns, data, and facts.

YHWH is exactly the personal name of the deity of the Jewish religious-believe system, especially up to a little before the end of the Second Temple period. While it does have meaning, as per linguistic, and theological usage, and had been prescribed in that intention (we can most logically conclude), it is nevertheless designated as a person name. Words, common nouns, such as el, eloha, elohim, adhanai, tsur, shaddahai, and so forth and so on, are not names, but are simply epithets. In that way, and to that extent, they reveal what the assigners of those epithets wish to prescribe as an attribute of YHWH.

Yeshua means YH is powerful (or strong), or 'power (or strength) is with YH, salvation. The reason for this name may be due to an actual historical person (it was a fairly common name at that time), or it may have also been simply assigned. The average of the better evidence, however, tells us that the base of the story had been on a real teacher, and most likely the actual, historical person had been named Yeshua. But, no big deal, Yeshua was no different than all the other Yeshuas living at that time--in the sense of being nothing more than just another H. sapien.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;105012 wrote:

The problem is, however, onlyone, that Cabala erred in favor of nonsense mysticism. Regarding the matter of names, as per the topic of the thread, that sect of medieval Jewish based occultism totally through into the fires of wishful thinking, secure linguistically and historically fixed concerns, data, and facts.

YHWH is exactly the personal name of the deity of the Jewish religious-believe system, especially up to a little before the end of the Second Temple period. While it does have meaning, as per linguistic, and theological usage, and had been prescribed in that intention (we can most logically conclude), it is nevertheless designated as a person name. Words, common nouns, such as el, eloha, elohim, adhanai, tsur, shaddahai, and so forth and so on, are not names, but are simply epithets. In that way, and to that extent, they reveal what the assigners of those epithets wish to prescribe as an attribute of YHWH.

Yeshua means YH is powerful (or strong), or 'power (or strength) is with YH, salvation. The reason for this name may be due to an actual historical person (it was a fairly common name at that time), or it may have also been simply assigned. The average of the better evidence, however, tells us that the base of the story had been on a real teacher, and most likely the actual, historical person had been named Yeshua. But, no big deal, Yeshua was no different than all the other Yeshuas living at that time--in the sense of being nothing more than just another H. sapien.

Hebrew unlike greek, sanskrit etc, as any real occultist would know is beyond being man made. Have you ever even bothered with studying the subject? ive compared greek gematria with hebrew and it is truly laughable. Down right funny! Probably why one is famous and the other is boring. The Gematria itself makes it divine. how can both meaning and gematria be united so seamlessly? greek, arabic etc suck at being so consistent. This is the basis for the contention that Hebrew is not man made, but given from above.

Also, have you read the works of the Ari(isaac luria), and the other Orthodox Jewish sources(Ramchal, Ramak, Ravad, Abulafia etc)? Or are you one of those who just take the 'word' of the cheap gnostic imitations that try to trivialize the kabbalah? ie; cabala/qabala in order to trivialize Judaism.

Those who deny and triviliaze hebrew and group it with man made languages often have an ulterior motive in doing so. Such people are crazy politically motivated sociopathic monsters who every normal human being has an aversion to. Their very deep rooted instinctual desires make them incapable of appreciating their 'divine' soul. Zohar goes in depth on this subject.

G-d performs miracles in the face of natural psychology. Just as there are two to everything. Natural, and divine. Your natural psychology is countered by the philosophy of chassidut. As the rebbe of lubavitch said, only in this world which appears independent(as gG-d is independent) can G-ds presence be united with his shekinah. A uniting of opposites is forged. Finite with infinite. G-ds Gevurah(which is the root of the finite) with G-ds chesed(our souls which are apart of him above, infinite). The pagan version of this is hypocrisy. Good and evil. Apparently evil isnt bad for people who arent subjected to it their entire lives. As Isaiah says, does the pot say to the potter, you did not create me? The moral of this story is this. Something finite and created (man) cannot compare his creation(yesh m'yesh, something from something) to G-d, who created something from nothing. Ex- nihilo.

Like i said in my previous post. Only those who accept G-ds providence are held under its sway(which is supernatural, no?) Those illuminati who think theyre gods have a stark stark reality awaiting them. Theyre casting off G-ds yoke puts them under the sun, under the natural forces. so naturally, they'll deny any supernatural reality. Youre life is entirely G-d given. Whats G-ds gift to man? Being. Is it also coincidence that the hebrew root of YHVH is 'being'?

Is that not enough of a gift? or must sexual perversity(Satan in hebrew has the same gematria as zera lavan - white seed, the sexual inclination) be your sole desire in living? As you may know, the 7th millenium, the millenium of shabbat is coming..If you made bad decisions in your life g-d does accept the penitent. Except the Acher. The one who mistakingly believes that everything is the same. no right or wrong. That person truly doesnt understand the PURPOSE in creation.

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

With the context of Aquinas' philosophy, the idea had a meaning because it was situated within a body of doctrine and a community of the faithful. This provided a common understanding within which 'the many names' were meaningful.

But anyway, I agree with the idea of a God beyond God, to which all the traditions are varying kinds of responses. If you look up the website of John Hick, philosopher of religion, you will find he has a similar view which he has elaborated in a series of books and articles. But it is a very progressive and idealistic view all the same. Many people of all faiths are very conscious of, and rather proud of, the difference between their God and other people's. It is human nature. So it is one of those things that people will be either inclined to agree with or not. Very few will change their view in my opinion.

Another good read on the topic is a perennial favourite, the Perennial Philosophy, Alduous Huxley.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;112614 wrote:

But anyway, I agree with the idea of a God beyond God, to which all the traditions are varying kinds of responses.

So do I. So do I. The skeleton of world religion. The kernel and its various husks. One species, one hidden capacity.

0 Replies

@Flamvell Rose,

recognising also that as soon as we have named 'it' or thought about what 'it' is, we have already missed the mark.

'The way that can be named is not the real way' - Tao Te Ching

1 Reply

The many names of God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know