Jesus and the "I AM"

Assuming you're talking about the bible, which of the estimated 450 historical English translations do you feel is the most accurate representation of "the Word of God"?

I'm fluent in Spanish; when I watch a Spanish movie with English sub-titles oftentimes the subtleties are lost in translation and don't make sense. Assuming the original biblical writings were from God or inspired by God (a big assumption), do you think anything has been added/deleted/edited/lost in translation over the years from God's orinigal word? (which of course, wasn't written in English)

Definately,

The female has been hidden and the information changed from wholeness to half. The original text did not say god. It said CREATOR(s) and was singluar and plural one god and one goddess that were two but also one as well. The question is WHY? Was it a protection for females or attempts to dominate the females?
 
I have a similar admiration for thier discussions.

However for me, I don't see Bobx as any kind of a skeptic, but as a biblical historian, and Thomas as a seeker, married to his tradition, educated through it, often defending, but the seeker is in there.

Yes, Bobx is a biblical historian, but he also uses arguments from scholars saturated in historical criticism. Where does historical criticism come from? Skeptics. David Freidrich Strauss released The Life of Jesus Critically Examined to disprove Christianity. Strauss was a skeptic. In fact, this is where liberal Christianity all started.

Thomas' arguments come from tradition, and I would like to add that historical criticism never emerged from believers in the tradition.
 
Kinda-sorta depends on what you mean by "tradition". There was (and is) plenty of criticism with Christianity as to the Septuagint-Vulgate vs Masoretic text (flurished before Luther was even born). Similarly some early church fathers debated the two versions of Mark. Finally, the historicism of Revelations is a continuing Oriental-Eastern Orthodox (and Armenians and Ethiopian) issue with the Latins and Protestants. You are looking only at "modern historical criticism".
 
Kinda-sorta depends on what you mean by "tradition". There was (and is) plenty of criticism with Christianity as to the Septuagint-Vulgate vs Masoretic text (flurished before Luther was even born). Similarly some early church fathers debated the two versions of Mark. Finally, the historicism of Revelations is a continuing Oriental-Eastern Orthodox (and Armenians and Ethiopian) issue with the Latins and Protestants. You are looking only at "modern historical criticism".

By tradition, I mean the core beliefs of Christianity.

If all the Church Fathers (with the exception of Origen, who did not believe Jesus physically resurrected) believed Jesus is literally God or physically rose from the dead, why does it matter if they debated the two versions of Mark? Orthodoxy was still upheld regardless of whether or not they accepted portions of Mark. The way Strauss used historical criticism was to disprove orthodox beliefs, so, yes, just as you say Radarmark, I am only looking at "modern historical criticism."
 
Fine, but it does matter that historical criticism dates from very early, it accounts for many problems in the East with Jews (Septuagint vs Masoretic texts) and a protion of the Greek-Latin Split. It was not theology or orthodoxy that caused that split. And the "minor" churches (Armenian and Ethiopean) still have a large disagreement over everyone else's idea of Revelation.

Historically one does not have to be a modernist or skeptic to see the value of historical criticism, which is what you implied.
 
Historically one does not have to be a modernist or skeptic to see the value of historical criticism, which is what you implied.

Okay. Thank you for the correction.
 
Jesus made a number of "I AM" statements



many people relate these to the Great I AM that Moses met,

Is this the case, since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

So are they the same "I AM" ?

No. It is not the same as when I say; If you do not come to believe I AM you will surely die in your sins.

Oh, I forgot Jesus also said that. You see He commanded me what to say and how to speak and since I know His commandment means eternal life ,what I say is spoken as He instructed me.
 
Just as a note, the translation of what God spoke to Moses should be something more like:
`I AM BECOMING'
I believe any good Hebrew scholar can clarify this.

If you leave off this MOST important word ... the picture is much harder to figure out. BECOMING, however, tells us something USEFUL, as well as personal (imho) about God.

God Himself, is evolving. God is BECOMING, literally GROWING, just as we are ... into something MORE than we currently are. God, too, progresses.

This is our relationship to God the Father. The latter, we are told, is the ELDEST in a Great Family of BRETHREN. Much LIKE a Father, even a FATHER-MOTHER Parent God (once we learn to set aside a clumsy and now defunct patriarchy) ... yet in truth, Biblically, God is the ELDEST, not actually a parent.

Creator-Gods, though some of them were undoubtedly far in advance of ourselves spiritually, also must work in matter ... so the story of our spiritual evolution, and material, for the greater bulk of our history upon Planet Earth ~ is little grasped. Biblically, it is all provided, in KEY and SYMBOLIC form.

Without those Keys, however, study groups will chase their own tails ... until the Intuition begins to awaken, or someone takes an interest in the esoteric side of religion.

WHY, I might ask, did God choose to descend into matter to begin with? This, some keen Bible students may realize, is PRECISELY what God - yes, ALMIGHTY, LIVING GOD - has done, by creating the world, and by coming into it AT ALL.

This was long before Jesus. This was long before Moses. This was long before Abraham. This was long before Adam. YES, even before Adam.

Allegory is beautiful, isn't it. Myth is a wonderful teaching tool, isn't it. Dead-letter, literal interpretations, however, get us nowhere. As Lewis Black points out, you don't have Rabbis going around claiming to be experts on the New Testament, do you?

Funny, then, that any idiot that goes to 2 Gay Bobs University (that's my Oral Roberts joke) ... or endures the grind of the seminary ... suddenly feels himself an expert on Hebrew Scriptures, suddenly able to interpret the living word of GAWD for us common folk. :rolleyes:

Now as a Gnostic, I know the Truth in what I speak, or share. I know what I don't know, but I also know that 95% of the story ... has either not been told, or has been turned away, because UNPOPULAR.

There was once a man who taught some very unpopular things with the so-called AUTHORITIES of the day, speaking of the ecclesiasts - those swine, the Sanhedrin.

Today, as the former Reappears among us, the latter have a correlation ... and the bastion of evil STILL opposes Christ's Mission on Earth, while simultaneously pretending to support and further it. These two Masters which they serve? THEY aren't confused about who's who, what's what, WHO or what God is, and WHO and what Jesus was & is.

Neither am I. Even as I continue to LEARN, and to aspire.

The `I am Becoming' dwells within us all. It is akin to, if not identical with St. Paul's `CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY.' And this, some have yet to discover, is none other than the CHRIST which was in CHRIST Jesus. But Gee, I thought that was Biblical too! ;)

When you find affirmation of the Christ, something significant is going on. Likewise, when Christ is denied, there is also something significant going on. But it is quite different.

Some are determined only to chase their own tails, and you really can't do much to prevent it. Get caught up in the mix, and the focus will be split between chasing YOU out of the fray ... and keeping the ridiculous tail-chasing going at breakneck pace. It's quite amusing, actually - if a bit unpleasant to the unsuspecting passers-by. Or the `meek.'

I am not meek, at least not usually, because I know how to swim with the sharks, as well as how to FLOW with the SCHOOL. I have been reminded that it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.

But what Christ shared was not exactly the syruppy sweet, candy-coated version we now inherit, this business about, "Believe in me and thou shalt inherit eternal life." HA! There's about 98% of that Message, that teaching, which most will never even consider. And yet, was Christ not speaking TRUTHfully?

Of course He was. And if you go back to the thread topic, and the first few lines I posted, you'll understand (more about) what He means. It should be easier now.

By the way, I credit the Inspiration here to John the Beloved. I understand that He has some Insight on the matter.

I AM BECOMING

Good ol' St. Paul did his best I suppose. But then, I may be biased.
I wonder what's become of him a couple millennia later. What will become - of any of us?

Oh, and - WHERE is Jesus, btw? Why are so many still towing the line, beating a dead horse?
Or, in this case, a dead lamb?

The Sacrificial Lamb is one thing. The Christianity of the future, Jesus' own, emphasizes the LIVING, RISEN CHRIST. If some would spin off far-longer posts than mine on our future in Christ, then surely these same folks can see that CHRIST-IS-BECOMING, regardless of what Christ has already accomplished.

When we force him into the box of a `just our free ticket into Heaven' - which is the watered down, sadly un-Christian teaching which now masquerades as such - Christ slips right through our fingers. When Christ is something that LIVES within each & every human being, meaning there is HOPE for each and every human Soul, THEN there is a future ... a true BECOMING. It means we can reach beyond ourselves and that we can GROW INTO God. Some will fight with this sentence construction, but try to see it one way first. Then the other will be apparent!

Christ Unites, and His Love is INCLUSIVE!!!

I hope Christianity can learn to do the same, by reaching OUTSIDE the box. Go argue with Mother Teresa if that sounds too difficult. Go tell God you don't like how the world works. Or, CHANGE IT.

God knows, some folks are tryin' ...
 

"becoming"


Just as a note, the translation of what God spoke to Moses should be something more like:
'I am Becoming'
...
God Himself, is evolving. God is becoming, literally growing, just as we are into something more than we currently are. God, too, progresses.
...
something that Lives within each & every human being, meaning there is Hope for each and every human Soul, then there is a future ... a true Becoming. It means we can reach beyond ourselves and that we can grow into God.
AndrewX
exquisite creature

as a kid , i would drag-home ideas similar to u'rs
(which i'd picked-up somewhere) , about "becoming"
to show my parents , thinking these are close to my parents' belief-system

New Age poppycock !
Pa would say
Human Potential nonsense !
then say no more , leaving it for Ma
to detail for me the "babytalk" version of actual Society-of-Friends beliefs

i was already long beyond that

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

frankly , these ideas (like u'rs) continue to have a
certain appeal , for me
(that reality changes)

yet these ideas (too) have that cloying fragrance
of something uber-fashionable in a narcissistic age (like ours)
(be all that u can be)

"be-coming" points
yes , to change (as the nature of all reality)
but also , to an ultimate union (what u "come to be")

so , AndrewX
as far-reaching as u'r ideas appear
they go not quite far enough , only halfway
(u go thru a change , but toward an endpoint)

u'r ideas feel (to me) like
a half-measure)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

u'rs , AndrewX
is a provocative interpretation of the famous Exodus 3:14 revelation
i am who i am
Yahweh revealing his "name" to Moses
(the first time the divine-name "Yahweh" is used by the Torah's E-author
"Yahweh" being translated in most Christian Bibles as "the LORD")

i'm no "Hebrew scholar" but i know there is
a fancy play-on-words going on , here
which could (credibly) be interpreted as
"i am becoming"

the word "Yahweh" is related to the Hebrew verb "hayah" , "to be"
but ancient languages are more concrete in their usages than modern languages
so that this "to be" means more like "to be present" or "to encounter"
(the "i am here" which u find people saying so often in Exodus
like one is answering a roll-call)
(& in ancient languages like Hebrew
the line between past-tense & present-tense & future-tense is often quite blurry)

thus, the rather modern & abstract "i am who i am"
(or "i am what i am" or "i will be what i will be")
has been translated (by some scholars of Ancient Hebrew) as
"i will be present where i will be present"

what is historically interesting about this translation
is , not that the phrase suggests "becoming" (or "growth")
which is (conceptually) an idea too modern (indeed , too postmodern)
to have entered the brain of this ancient Israelite Mushite-priest (who
is writing this E-version of Moses' revelation) , but this translation
does suggest a quite novel (if still "concrete") understanding of divinity

the Divine does not make its home in one Temple or on one Mountain-top
the Divine moves about
at its whim , the Divine may appear here or there or anywhere

Gyd is not quite "universal" yet
but Gyd is halfway there
Gyd has wheels , Gyd is mobile

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

in John 4:21-23 Jesus tells the Samaritan woman by the well
woman , believe me the hour is coming
when u will worship the Father neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem ...
but ... will worship the Father in spirit & truth
for the Father seeks persons such as these to worship him


the Gospel of John completes this journey to "universality"
(to an abstract form of faith , & revelation)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the "i am" passages in the Gospel of John
("i am the way & the truth & the life" et cetera)
yes , probably are referencing the Voice from the Burning Bush
but with a modern (abstract) twist to the wordplay

John's concept of Jesus the Galilean coalesces this "Jesus" as both
a "new-Moses" who receives Yahweh's calling , & as (a Hellenized retread of)
"Yahweh" who unveils himself to each (future) Follower of the Way

Jesus both as prophet & as Gyd

it's a neat (linguistic) trick
& John's "i am" passages pull-it-off pretty effectively

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2 revelations

Moses is told by Yahweh
i will be encountered by u from time to time
take heed !


future-disciples are told by Jesus (John 1:35-51) to simply
come & see

what the old & new have in-common
is the stark & undeniable sense of
i am choosing u
i have a mission for u


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

whether concrete or abstract
there is still a clear separation
between believer & the Divine

where , AndrewX
a sense of the Divine evolving , or
a sense of the believer growing into Gyd
is not an ancient nor an early-modern concept

this is something much more recent , historically
(i.e. , postmodern)

& i do not feel it is useful to attempt to
back-project "becoming" onto the past
(it's a false fit)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

however
"be-coming" does imply a teleology (a "coming to be")
(a nouveau-eschatology , which yes
is a half-fit with the Gospel of John's era)

the sense of
once u get "there"
(heaven-on-earth or kingdom-of-god or socialist-utopia)
history is done

("evolution to..." is
not evolution at all)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

with my friend Stevi , the core idea
for any genuine religion
(for the meaning of life , itself) is
what Stevi calls
telesitics
(borrowing a term from Communication Theory)

this concept takes
"being" past stasis (past "eternity") & takes
"becoming" past teleology (past "eschatology")
(guaranteeing a genuine future , continued growth & ongoing history)

real-world change comes
as a direct challenge to outworn concepts
(comes in stark contrast to old designs)

"telesitics" means
being or becoming entirely
other than what u are

(re-wire u'r entire core-reality
re-align u'r entire deep-ecology)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is a hard demand

(but who tells u
religious life is going to be easy ? )

no half-measures , here

 
"becoming"

AndrewX
exquisite creature

as a kid , i would drag-home ideas similar to u'rs
(which i'd picked-up somewhere) , about "becoming"
to show my parents , thinking these are close to my parents' belief-system

New Age poppycock !
Pa would say
Human Potential nonsense !
then say no more , leaving it for Ma
to detail for me the "babytalk" version of actual Society-of-Friends beliefs

i was already long beyond that

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

frankly , these ideas (like u'rs) continue to have a
certain appeal , for me
(that reality changes)

yet these ideas (too) have that cloying fragrance
of something uber-fashionable in a narcissistic age (like ours)
(be all that u can be)

"be-coming" points
yes , to change (as the nature of all reality)
but also , to an ultimate union (what u "come to be")

so , AndrewX
as far-reaching as u'r ideas appear
they go not quite far enough , only halfway
(u go thru a change , but toward an endpoint)

u'r ideas feel (to me) like
a half-measure)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

u'rs , AndrewX
is a provocative interpretation of the famous Exodus 3:14 revelation
i am who i am
Yahweh revealing his "name" to Moses
(the first time the divine-name "Yahweh" is used by the Torah's E-author
"Yahweh" being translated in most Christian Bibles as "the LORD")

i'm no "Hebrew scholar" but i know there is
a fancy play-on-words going on , here
which could (credibly) be interpreted as
"i am becoming"

the word "Yahweh" is related to the Hebrew verb "hayah" , "to be"
but ancient languages are more concrete in their usages than modern languages
so that this "to be" means more like "to be present" or "to encounter"
(the "i am here" which u find people saying so often in Exodus
like one is answering a roll-call)
(& in ancient languages like Hebrew
the line between past-tense & present-tense & future-tense is often quite blurry)

thus, the rather modern & abstract "i am who i am"
(or "i am what i am" or "i will be what i will be")
has been translated (by some scholars of Ancient Hebrew) as
"i will be present where i will be present"

what is historically interesting about this translation
is , not that the phrase suggests "becoming" (or "growth")
which is (conceptually) an idea too modern (indeed , too postmodern)
to have entered the brain of this ancient Israelite Mushite-priest (who
is writing this E-version of Moses' revelation) , but this translation
does suggest a quite novel (if still "concrete") understanding of divinity

the Divine does not make its home in one Temple or on one Mountain-top
the Divine moves about
at its whim , the Divine may appear here or there or anywhere

Gyd is not quite "universal" yet
but Gyd is halfway there
Gyd has wheels , Gyd is mobile

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

in John 4:21-23 Jesus tells the Samaritan woman by the well
woman , believe me the hour is coming
when u will worship the Father neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem ...
but ... will worship the Father in spirit & truth
for the Father seeks persons such as these to worship him

the Gospel of John completes this journey to "universality"
(to an abstract form of faith , & revelation)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the "i am" passages in the Gospel of John
("i am the way & the truth & the life" et cetera)
yes , probably are referencing the Voice from the Burning Bush
but with a modern (abstract) twist to the wordplay

John's concept of Jesus the Galilean coalesces this "Jesus" as both
a "new-Moses" who receives Yahweh's calling , & as (a Hellenized retread of)
"Yahweh" who unveils himself to each (future) Follower of the Way

Jesus both as prophet & as Gyd

it's a neat (linguistic) trick
& John's "i am" passages pull-it-off pretty effectively

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2 revelations

Moses is told by Yahweh
i will be encountered by u from time to time
take heed !

future-disciples are told by Jesus (John 1:35-51) to simply
come & see

what the old & new have in-common
is the stark & undeniable sense of
i am choosing u
i have a mission for u

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

whether concrete or abstract
there is still a clear separation
between believer & the Divine

where , AndrewX
a sense of the Divine evolving , or
a sense of the believer growing into Gyd
is not an ancient nor an early-modern concept

this is something much more recent , historically
(i.e. , postmodern)

& i do not feel it is useful to attempt to
back-project "becoming" onto the past
(it's a false fit)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

however
"be-coming" does imply a teleology (a "coming to be")
(a nouveau-eschatology , which yes
is a half-fit with the Gospel of John's era)

the sense of
once u get "there"
(heaven-on-earth or kingdom-of-god or socialist-utopia)
history is done

("evolution to..." is
not evolution at all)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

with my friend Stevi , the core idea
for any genuine religion
(for the meaning of life , itself) is
what Stevi calls
telesitics
(borrowing a term from Communication Theory)

this concept takes
"being" past stasis (past "eternity") & takes
"becoming" past teleology (past "eschatology")
(guaranteeing a genuine future , continued growth & ongoing history)

real-world change comes
as a direct challenge to outworn concepts
(comes in stark contrast to old designs)

"telesitics" means
being or becoming entirely
other than what u are

(re-wire u'r entire core-reality
re-align u'r entire deep-ecology)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is a hard demand

(but who tells u
religious life is going to be easy ? )

no half-measures , here

I dont believe God changes and never will. Hes love and he has one personality.
 
Jesus made a number of "I AM" statements



many people relate these to the Great I AM that Moses met,

Is this the case, since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

So are they the same "I AM" ?

The form etym "truth" in Greek is akin to the Persian hastam "I am" cf. Eng. is + am.... maybe that was an Aryan anachronism that the Jews and Christians adopted. Might also be worth noting that the Sanskrit forms satya "truth" and swastika are share the same root as the English is. Maybe this is where the idea of the true cross came from or maybe it was via Thomas (see Persian cross -http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=BY8&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&biw=925&bih=578&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=pycGdyZ9FPKS3M:&imgrefurl=http://matrix-explained.com/photopost/showphoto.php%3Fphoto%3D1947&docid=pb5r6dSqJvE9DM&imgurl=http://www.matrix-explained.com/photopost/data/515/4372persian-cross-400.jpg&w=400&h=393&ei=rttFT6feN4LV0QGJtdjpAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=232&vpy=132&dur=1191&hovh=223&hovw=226&tx=126&ty=103&sig=115709929924483572883&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=131&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=0CEoQrQMwAQ). Jesus is often associated with the cross, but also with the tree of knowledge.
 
The form etym "truth" in Greek is akin to the Persian hastam "I am" cf. Eng. is + am.... maybe that was an Aryan anachronism that the Jews and Christians adopted. Might also be worth noting that the Sanskrit forms satya "truth" and swastika are share the same root as the English is. Maybe this is where the idea of the true cross came from or maybe it was via Thomas (see Persian cross -Redirect Notice). Jesus is often associated with the cross, but also with the tree of knowledge.
When you find ones own opposite you find your true I AM then your in the image of the GREAT I AM...the Creator(s) aka JEHOVAH.
 
When you find ones own opposite you find your true I AM then your in the image of the GREAT I AM...the Creator(s) aka JEHOVAH.

The form Yahweh "I AM" cf. Babylonian Yam/Yaw "god of the ocean" the conceptual equivalent to the Sumerian Tiamat but prob. related to Yimr of Norse mythology from whose body the world sprang, and Yima Khshaeta "the Zoroastrian Noah" (Jamsheed was sawed into two in the Shanameha). Both Yima and Yimr are akin to the Latin Gemini "twin."

Marduk who slew Tiamat was prob. related to Gayo-mard who was slain by Ahriman and whose body the world sprang from. Babylonian Anath cf. Av. Anahita, Gk. Athena
 
The form Yahweh "I AM" cf. Babylonian Yam/Yaw "god of the ocean" the conceptual equivalent to the Sumerian Tiamat but prob. related to Yimr of Norse mythology from whose body the world sprang, and Yima Khshaeta "the Zoroastrian Noah" (Jamsheed was sawed into two in the Shanameha). Both Yima and Yimr are akin to the Latin Gemini "twin."

Marduk who slew Tiamat was prob. related to Gayo-mard who was slain by Ahriman and whose body the world sprang from. Babylonian Anath cf. Av. Anahita, Gk. Athena

Very interesting:)
 
Just as a note, the translation of what God spoke to Moses should be something more like:
`I AM BECOMING'
I believe any good Hebrew scholar can clarify this.
No ... that's not God at all, is it?

Or rather, that's not the God if the Abrahamic Tradition, not the God of Plato nor Aristotle ... indeed, not the God of the Brahmins, either.

You're trying to make the Absolute into something relative.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Ah, but what, pray tell is the difference between "Being" and "Becoming". Not much... in one the thing-that-is must be abstracted from reality, in the other reality is the thing-that-is and a little bit from outside. One may believe in a Platonic World all one wants, it will not make that world real. Belief in one man's conception of categories, substances, and universals does not force reality to adhere to them.

The Absolute is something beyond, unknowable. I, myself, do not claim to know if H! is relative or not. But in the ineffable infinity, it can be said that relativity is the same as the absolute.
 
No ... that's not God at all, is it?

Or rather, that's not the God if the Abrahamic Tradition, not the God of Plato nor Aristotle ... indeed, not the God of the Brahmins, either.

You're trying to make the Absolute into something relative.

God bless,

Thomas

The thing is you have to find the female that is the opposite of yourself as a male.....thats each mans great I AM. I AM who I AM.
 
The thing is you have to find the female that is the opposite of yourself as a male.....thats each mans great I AM. I AM who I AM.
Each half being a combination of the two : the actual creators a half may have attirbutes of the father and mother but if female it will be female attributes opposite the father but like the mother.....understand? And vise versa for the males.
 
Ah, but what, pray tell is the difference between "Being" and "Becoming". Not much... in one the thing-that-is must be abstracted from reality, in the other reality is the thing-that-is and a little bit from outside. One may believe in a Platonic World all one wants, it will not make that world real. Belief in one man's conception of categories, substances, and universals does not force reality to adhere to them.

The Absolute is something beyond, unknowable. I, myself, do not claim to know if H! is relative or not. But in the ineffable infinity, it can be said that relativity is the same as the absolute.


Its not unknowable it was just hidden from sight but when one opens their eyes they see the truth and whats hidden is revealed.....whole purpose of revelation correct?
 
Back
Top