Religion

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)

72. So how did the Jews come to God the Father, as it seemed - before Jesus was alive?

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 11:12 AM

Apr 2014

Did they never come to God, even though the Old Testament had them following him often?

Or did they come to God say, under a different name? "Jahweh," "Elohim," etc.? In which case, its not so exclusive.

Look into the inherent ambiguity that came from the many different names of God. Including "Jesus" himself.

For a long time theologians hypothesized that early texts were talking about somewhat different gods in fact. Like the "Jahwist" vs. the "Elohim"ist. Today we might extend past that incomplete hypothesis, to look at the dozens of names that were taken to be the name of "one" God. But which are significantly different gods, it often seems.

Still some ambiguity, even here. In the name, identity, and character of God himself.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is religion a source of unity or division? [View all] cbayer Mar 2014 OP

Division exboyfil Mar 2014 #1

One can find biblical passages to support either answer. cbayer Mar 2014 #3

Which ones? exboyfil Mar 2014 #9

Cherry picking can go both ways. cbayer Mar 2014 #14

Well said! hrmjustin Mar 2014 #16

And you're the "decider" Goblinmonger Mar 2014 #19

Apparently you did not get cbayer's point. longship Apr 2014 #56

You made the argument below skepticscott Apr 2014 #57

Apparently you DID NOT get cbayer's point Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #60

I would agree with your point. longship Apr 2014 #65

I don't think that is the general consensus of theists here Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #71

Giving the context for those quotes skepticscott Mar 2014 #20

Agenda? What agenda, pray tell. (So to speak) nt longship Apr 2014 #54

Oh, so you've volunteered skepticscott Apr 2014 #58

It sure can. No one disputes that. trotsky Mar 2014 #22

Her point is that one can use the Bible to support just about anything. longship Apr 2014 #55

If the Bible supports ANYthing, then we should not quote it at all. Since it's actually equivocal Brettongarcia Apr 2014 #59

It sure can. I totally agree. trotsky Apr 2014 #64

Where the Bible talks about living with all in harmony exboyfil Mar 2014 #25

Again, you are cherry picking and your conclusion that the overall theme is one of cbayer Mar 2014 #29

Revelation ends with exboyfil Mar 2014 #34

I find the bible unifying but I see how you disagree. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #36

Revelation? Do you actually read revelation literally? cbayer Mar 2014 #37

Personally I don't think Revelation should have been included in the bible. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #38

There's a bunch of stuff I think could have been left out, lol. cbayer Mar 2014 #39

If "cherry-picking" is not legitimate ... then what about your advocacy of the cherries you like? Brettongarcia Apr 2014 #75

Where did I say cherry picking was not legitimate? cbayer Apr 2014 #77

The verses that you cherry picked to show the "good" part of the Bible stopbush Apr 2014 #101

You just continue to make my point. cbayer Apr 2014 #88

Unity like that is actually division. eomer Apr 2014 #87

Of course they are great examples of how using a very short excerpt can cbayer Apr 2014 #89

The point is, why do people need the Bible for that? skepticscott Apr 2014 #91

Okay, but if one gets a positive message from a section that actually said the opposite... eomer Apr 2014 #92

I can tell you this from my own experience. cbayer Apr 2014 #93

Here's the glaring flaw in all of that skepticscott Apr 2014 #94

You've pointed out the crux of that which our friend CBayer doesn't see stopbush Apr 2014 #108

Not only doesn't she see it skepticscott Apr 2014 #112

Sadly,yes. She frames issues in as narrow a way as possible. Then, when challenged within stopbush Apr 2014 #114

Exactly skepticscott Apr 2014 #115

Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #109

You seem determined to follow me around everywhere skepticscott Apr 2014 #110

Fortunately, anyone who reads that thread without bias can see you demonstrated no such thing. rug Apr 2014 #111

And yet another noise blast skepticscott Apr 2014 #113

I think "noise blast" is an apt description of skepticscott's posts Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #119

Hence the call for context of those quotes skepticscott Apr 2014 #90

Brethren and sisteren AlbertCat Apr 2014 #100

Yes, one certainly can. trotsky Mar 2014 #10

So how did the Jews come to God the Father, as it seemed - before Jesus was alive? Brettongarcia Apr 2014 #72

One theory that I heard exboyfil Apr 2014 #82

Unifying for those IN the same sect Goblinmonger Mar 2014 #2

Correct! trotsky Mar 2014 #12

And of course sects keep exboyfil Mar 2014 #13

And of course sects forming like a hydra AlbertCat Apr 2014 #102

For me unifying. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #4

And the world could use more of you. cbayer Mar 2014 #7

Lol I have plenty of faults but thank you. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #8

Yes. Deep13 Mar 2014 #5

Exactly. It can be either and has been both. cbayer Mar 2014 #6

I don't think I will be able to attend, so no basis for an opinion. Deep13 Mar 2014 #11

I think it was invitation only. cbayer Mar 2014 #17

I think it was invitation only. AlbertCat Apr 2014 #103

Were any atheists invited to this conference? trotsky Mar 2014 #15

Count up the number of skepticscott Mar 2014 #18

Religion usually supports anti-science based subjective thinking, a dangerous policy. nt ladjf Mar 2014 #21

While there are some religious groups that do support anti-science based cbayer Mar 2014 #23

My post was my comment on the question about religious groups tendency toward unity or divisiveness. ladjf Mar 2014 #24

I know what subjective means, I just didn't understand how you were using cbayer Mar 2014 #27

Ethics systems based on subjective thinking alone are dangerous guidelines. It some cases, they may ladjf Mar 2014 #33

How does one base ethic systems on science? cbayer Mar 2014 #35

Ethics are entirely subjective? Are you kidding me? stopbush Apr 2014 #116

Are you proposing a physics-based "ethics system"? LTX Apr 2014 #80

Yes, I am suggesting that ethics should be based upon the ladjf Apr 2014 #81

Well, if you ever do decide to provide explanations for your views, LTX Apr 2014 #84

LTX, thank you for your insightful questions and ideas. ladjf Apr 2014 #95

While there are some religious groups that do support anti-science AlbertCat Apr 2014 #104

It empowers both but... deathrind Mar 2014 #26

I think the jury is out on whether there has been more division than unity. cbayer Mar 2014 #28

Funny that you... deathrind Mar 2014 #30

How are you liking jury duty? cbayer Mar 2014 #31

The deathrind Mar 2014 #32

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. Fumesucker Mar 2014 #40

Asking him if her were religious or an atheist should have been a dead cbayer Mar 2014 #41

Holy Wars, Jihads The River Mar 2014 #42

While I agree that religion is part of the evolutionary process and evolves, cbayer Mar 2014 #43

Religion will be replaced The River Mar 2014 #44

I don't believe that will ever happen. cbayer Mar 2014 #45

Figures... The River Mar 2014 #46

I wouldn't read either, to be honest Act_of_Reparation Mar 2014 #47

According to Chopra The River Mar 2014 #49

Ah. I'm stupid. That explains it! Act_of_Reparation Mar 2014 #50

Read it or don't. Makes no difference to me. Anyway, it's not my bible. cbayer Apr 2014 #62

Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #105

For Native Americans okasha Mar 2014 #48

Divisive SamKnause Mar 2014 #51

Subjugation and division actually on point Apr 2014 #52

I love all the Bible quotes in this thread. longship Apr 2014 #53

So, as a book, it isn't a good basis for a moral code. Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #61

I love the ventriloquist dummy analogy and that was exactly my point. cbayer Apr 2014 #63

Well it depends on how you think the Bible should be read. el_bryanto Apr 2014 #66

Good point. cbayer Apr 2014 #67

How is it a cheap shot? A cheap shot implies that it isn't a fair criticism. el_bryanto Apr 2014 #68

I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally. cbayer Apr 2014 #69

Well, that is your belief. Many people disagree with you. trotsky Apr 2014 #70

I don't think that's what I did. el_bryanto Apr 2014 #73

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what we are debating here. cbayer Apr 2014 #74

I guess the question would be have they missed the good parts? el_bryanto Apr 2014 #85

Agree. It's the absolutist statement that are problematic, imo. cbayer Apr 2014 #86

Division - By Design cantbeserious Apr 2014 #76

FEAR vs. FEAR JEFF9K Apr 2014 #78

I think that's true to some extent. cbayer Apr 2014 #79

Good point. JEFF9K Apr 2014 #83

I don't know how many people feel that way. goldent Apr 2014 #96

unity Deomocritus318 Apr 2014 #97

Ch 42 Deomocritus318 Apr 2014 #98

Welcome to DU! rug Apr 2014 #99

Tribes. PassingFair Apr 2014 #106

As usual, the fallacy of complex question Trajan Apr 2014 #107

Historically speaking, it's natural for all Christian sects to battle each other Warpy Apr 2014 #117

Both. Unity of Group. Division of groups. mmonk Apr 2014 #118