Heu… Why do you find this silly, my friend? Or is it that no Jew uses this expression to mean the Lord God? I encountered that expression in a novel by Chaim Potok, My Name Is Asher Lev… ever read it? And I thought this expression to be one good way, not a silly one, to describe God, so with you Jews I don’t mind using it!
*I told you why I found it funny. It is an expression that most in my generation would correspond to He-Man… given that Christianity thinks of Jesus as a god-man, well, it was just ironic to see it used. *
Make sense? **No, we are not the same person, but thank you for the compliment you have given to me.
*Not necessarily (the first part of what you have said). And in regards to what you are replying and given the second statement, my answer to that is as follows:
*Right, from what I can tell, Ben and I have a different perspective on the command to Love God with all one’s fill in blank though it seems the end result is still the same… Jesus taught the key element that was left out of the original command. It is about Divine Love and not about the desire to be accepted when it comes to my view of observing the Law and trying to teach others to do the same.
Don’t worry, simplynoone, I think your explanation makes sense. And, no, I haven’t read any He-man cartoon, and I didn’t indeed know about it.*I told you why I found it funny. It is an expression that most in my generation would correspond to He-Man… given that Christianity thinks of Jesus as a god-man, well, it was just ironic to see it used. *
**
*I would not use that title for God personally. I can not speak for others. 1) Again, that the title is associated in the minds of many in my culture and generation with He-Man and given the view of Jesus that Christianity is emanating to the world, it seems silly to me. 2) The term MASTER is not a personal expression that fits my (true, very limited) perspective of God. *
**
*I can easily observe that God has allowed much freedom for His creation to grow and learn. I do not see that He is forcing anyone to submit or do anything that is against their will. While I believe that there is nothing that is NOT in the control of God, the type of control, in my mind, is something better described as creative… thus, I think Creator of the Universe is more in line with my perspective. *
**
*Take for instance the hardening of Pharoah’s heart… God used His People to expose that jealousy that was already there (evidenced in that Pharoah enjoyed to oppress the children of Israel). THAT is creative and not at all an imposition on the free will of Pharoah. **The term “Master” in my mind implies a negative connotation. To me, using the same expample, it would imply that He, God, did indeed override Pharoah’s free will… and since this is a VERY accepted view, to call God “Master of the Universe” would only seem to further that negative and false connotation of God. *
**
*I do understand that Master can also mean “teacher,” but most often when used in that manner, it implies a teacher who has been qualified to teach. There is no qualifying God to teach. He is the Creator and it is He who does the qualifying. **That some referred to Jesus as “master,” it was suitable regarding this 2nd view… he was qualified to teach the Torah. To call God “Master of the Universe” is mostly to misguide others concerning the way God works with His creation. Creator of the Universe is, in my mind anyway, a much more suitable an expression regarding the impression I have thus far of God.
**
*BTW, no… I have not read the book that you marked down. *
**
The difference between me and most others is that I do not seek to express to God how I view Him… I seek to express to others the little bit I have learned about Him via His Law, His Word, and what I have personally observed of how it is He is working with His creation. Given how most people think, “master of the universe” would not be appropriate to get across what I know of Him thus far. (sorry so long… )
For what you call “holes”… any examples? and as for being “full of contradictions”, the same accusation goes for the Old Testament, no? And often, in both cases it could be explained as being in fact paradoxes rather than contradictions, or angles taken from different perspectives. Don’t jump too easily at conclusions!*No, we are not the same person, but thank you for the compliment you have given to me.
For me, I realized that the only way to understand the Hebrew Scriptures would be to try to understand the Jewish perspective since they are the People it originated from (for truly the Christian view is much too full of holes and contradictions that to be believed, one must do so blindly); so, it should not be surprising that I would hold to some of the same views as the Jewish People do, no?*
Thank you. And no worries about running out to grab any He-man cartoons… it would only be a wasting of your time.
*I honestly did not believe you viewed the expression in this way. A lot of my reaction to it, as I said, is likely associated with the cartoon I mentioned. *
I like what you have said here. I may have a bit of a different take on it, but you having brought up in just this way actually helped spark a light in my head in regards to something I have been trying to understand my own self lately. Thank you for posting your thoughts on it.
Well, what is this suppose to mean? Come on Lapell! What are you trying to imply? Before you answer, tell me where in the whole of the NT is the word “Catholic” written? Does it mean, Catholicism is a fraud? I think you have just committed a blunder. I am going to assume you said nothing.
Yes, that’s the same name for the Sect of the Nazarenes. When Paul went for letters in Jerusalem, the text says that it was to arrest the followers of
How about your hands? When you hit nails with bare hands,As for my nails, they are quite all right, thank you!
I was replying to this post, Ben.
Hitting nails? Is it a symbolic expression, or what? I am French, remember!
Oh, sorry! You handle the English language so well that I thought you could understand any igniomatic expression. Yes, that’s an analogy.
I know this was not addressed to me and I do hope no one will mind my taking the initiative to respond. In Genesis 49:10, it says “…and unto him (Judah) shall the gathering of the people be.” Thus, it seems that Judaism is spoken of (and clearly) in the Tanakh.
You find this to be absolutely clear, simplynoone? Then you will agree that those who started preaching Jesus Christ from the Pentecost after Jesus’ death (and Resurrection according to the Christians) could be also called Christians even though the name Christians really first came some time after that in Antioch according to the book of the Acts of the Apostles… Or if not, please explain why it couldn’t be! … (I know, it’s rather Ben’s argument…)I know this was not addressed to me and I do hope no one will mind my taking the initiative to respond. In Genesis 49:10, it says “…and unto him (Judah) shall the gathering of the people be.” Thus, it seems that Judaism is spoken of (and clearly) in the Tanakh.
*Yes, that is not my argument. The name to whom the people would be gathered to is stated in the beginning and it wasn’t Christ or Jesus. It was Judah. Isaiah clearly states that the end is declared from the beginning, thus, yes… to me it is clear. Judaism is the faith supported in the Tanakh and even by Jesus who confirmed the Law and the prophets more than once. Christianity is, I guess, where those of the Greek mind are to be gathered since it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Really, I do not see how this could be argued with… I know many try to, but it was already declared before the believers of Hellenistic mythologies tried to “overwrite” Judah with the name “Christ” via power of suggestion. *
simplynoone, please keep in mind that in Jesus’ time they were surrounded by Greek civilization, and that Many Jews then already were living outside Judea and Samaria, that the Diasporah Jews read not the Hebrew Bible, but the Septuagint (in Greek) Bible!*Yes, that is not my argument. The name to whom the people would be gathered to is stated in the beginning and it wasn’t Christ or Jesus. It was Judah. Isaiah clearly states that the end is declared from the beginning, thus, yes… to me it is clear. Judaism is the faith supported in the Tanakh and even by Jesus who confirmed the Law and the prophets more than once. Christianity is, I guess, where those of the Greek mind are to be gathered since it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Really, I do not see how this could be argued with… I know many try to, but it was already declared before the believers of Hellenistic mythologies tried to “overwrite” Judah with the name “Christ” via power of suggestion. *