-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The name of the God
- Thread starter Nechemyah
- Start date
nutshell
Well-Known Member
Nechemyah said:if Jesus is the name of the Son why doesnt John 5:43 corresponds with his name as the God of Israel who the Israelites followed.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The scripture you reference is here:
43 I am come in my aFathers bname, and ye creceive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
The Bible is a mythical book with countless discrepancies and contradictions. Thusly, it should not be taken seriously.
Because "my father's name" doesn't mean Jesus; there is a myth here adopted in order to teach. Jesus knew himself only as the Son. Check out 'The Message' version: "If I were simply speaking on my own account, it would be an empty, self-serving witness."Nechemyah said:if Jesus is the name of the Son why doesnt John 5:43 corresponds with his name as the God of Israel who the Israelites followed.
"John was a torch, blazing and bright, and you were glad enough to dance for an hour or so in his bright light. But the witness that really confirms me far exceeds John's witness. It's the work the Father gave me to complete. These very tasks, as I go about completing them, confirm that the Father, in fact, sent me. The Father who sent me, confirmed me." (~The Message)
mostly harmless
Endlessly amused
Is that really how the 'The Message' version reads?Willamena said:
I haven't checked that one out yet...I have the KJ version and NIV....Neither are really good for picking through with a young kid though...
krashlocke
Member
In my opinion, the Message is easy to read like a novel but lends itself to too much of the author's interpetations and biases and has more inaccuracies than King James. Nice for an overview, but a bad place to start for theological study.
Then again, the same could be said for taking anything literal from a translation. It's difficult to translate clearly from Hebrew to English or Aramaic to Greek to English and still retain the full meaning of what was conveyed.
Then again, the same could be said for taking anything literal from a translation. It's difficult to translate clearly from Hebrew to English or Aramaic to Greek to English and still retain the full meaning of what was conveyed.
arielmessenger
Member
Nechemyah said:if Jesus is the name of the Son why doesnt John 5:43 corresponds with his name as the God of Israel who the Israelites followed.
John's Jesus knows the Father who is God Most High who is not the tribal god of the Israelites but the God the Father whom the early Israelites worshipped through their tribal god Yahweh, as the Son of EL Elyon, God Most High. Jesus is attempting to reestablish the correct Father to Son relationship which of course meant running afoul Jewish religious authority that had falsely elevated Yawheh to EL's position with the resulting morally schizophrenic doctrines of two separate gods with two separate personalities.
