Objective Evidence for the God of Scripture?

[Gladius]

I have a bone to pick with you. You refer to Yahusha, but that was not Jesus' Hebrew name. His name was spelled:

Shin oo shin yod
Pronunciation: eeshoosh

His name is composed of two smaller Hebrew words... eesh=black+oosh=foundation.

In Greek they don't have the sound 'sh', so they had to transliterate shin as sigma in the Greek translation of the New testament. His Hebrew name translated to Greek is: Isous(eesooce).

What are you talking about?
And use proper Hebrew please.

 

[LeePappas]

What are you talking about?
And use proper Hebrew please.

Proper Hebrew spelling
Shin (resh with a nikkud for the oo sound) shin yod

Pronunciation
Eeshoosh

Etymology
Eesh=black+ oosh= foundation

Note: Jesus was referred to as the cornerstone of the church, and a foundation is laid with a cornerstone.

At Hebrew alphabet (Judaism 101) you find:

"most nikkud are used to indicate vowels. table 2 illustrates the vowel points, along with their pronunciations. pronunciations are approximate; i have heard quite a bit of variation in vowel pronunciation.

Vowel points are shown in blue. The letter Alef (א), shown in red, is used to illustrate the position of the points relative to the consonants. The letters shown in purple (Vavs ו and Yods י) are technically consonants and would appear in unpointed texts, but they are part of the vowel in this context."

Technically the third letter of his name is a vav with a nikkud but vav and resh are very similar looking, and I said resh for a good reason. In ancient Hebrew Reish=king, so that his name was a double entendre.

Second meaning of Jesus' name
Eesh=black+reish=king

 

[Gladius]

Proper Hebrew spelling
Shin (resh with a nikkud for the oo sound) shin yod

Pronunciation
Eeshoosh

Etymology
Eesh=black+ oosh= foundation

Note: Jesus was referred to as the cornerstone of the church, and a foundation is laid with a cornerstone.

At Hebrew alphabet (Judaism 101) you find:

"most nikkud are used to indicate vowels. table 2 illustrates the vowel points, along with their pronunciations. pronunciations are approximate; i have heard quite a bit of variation in vowel pronunciation.

Vowel points are shown in blue. The letter Alef (א), shown in red, is used to illustrate the position of the points relative to the consonants. The letters shown in purple (Vavs ו and Yods י) are technically consonants and would appear in unpointed texts, but they are part of the vowel in this context."

Technically the third letter of his name is a vav with a nikkud but vav and resh are very similar looking, and I said resh for a good reason. In ancient Hebrew Reish=king, so that his name was a double entendre.

Second meaning of Jesus' name
Eesh=black+reish=king

I speak Hebrew, no need to explain it.
Did you just try to pass Jesus as an African king by making up etymologies?
You're clearly not a Hebrew speaker.

You wrote:
Shin shin yod which is ששי , SH.SH.Y
Although it seems you spoke about ישו , Y.SH.U (Yeshu).

Eesh is not black, Esh is fire.
Oosh is not foundation.

Your last one was just fantastic:
Vav ו
and Reish ר
"Look similar"
Reish is "king" in "ancient Hebrew" (spoiler, it's not)
You confused with Ra'is from Arabic which is commander/governor.
The way letters are called have nothing to do with this, just as you don't look for hidden meanings in "Em" or "Bee".

Please don't make up things and present them as knowledge.
At least use the actual letters instead of "Shin (reish with nikkud for oo sound)" which is meaningless.

Sorry if I sounded harsh, there's a pattern on this forum with people who claim to know "real Hebrew" but don't.

 

[LeePappas]

Eesh is not black, Esh is fire.
Oosh is not foundation.

I translated Genesis, and discovered Ish(eesh)=black, as in Ishtar, or Ishene=Essene. It most certainly does mean 'black,' you are mistaken on this point, and I'm willing to discuss it further.

And if you speak Hebrew then you know ene=not, so the Essene Hebrews were the non-black Hebrews.

Oosh does mean foundation you are just negating what I'm saying, that's no way to reason. I used the new Strong's expanded concordance dictionary of Bible words to discover that fact. On page 350, word 787 of the Strong's concordance states:

Shin Aleph 3X(Aram), oosh; corresp. (by transp. and abb.) to 803; a foundation:-foundation {3X} See TWOT-2613;BDB-1083b.

Your last one was just fantastic:
Vav ו
and Reish ר
"Look similar"

See this link:
Hebrew Alphabet - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

There you we'll see that vav is more than just a vertical line it resembles resh, you are using some kind of internet text. That's not what a Hebrew would write.

Reish is "king" in "ancient Hebrew" (spoiler, it's not)
You confused with Ra'is from Arabic which is commander/governor.
The way letters are called have nothing to do with this, just as you don't look for hidden meanings in "Em" or "Bee".

'Reish' did mean king in ancient Hebrew, your understanding of thousands of years of History depends upon knowing that.

When Jesus was on the cross the speakers of Greek held up their open palms towards him and yelled, "Na zaw resh" which is where the word Nazareth comes from. After the crucifixion of Jesus the Jews reversed the last two letters of their alphabet. Shin became the 21st letter and Thav became the 22nd.

Nazaresh became Nazareth, forever after.

Na[Greek]=look there
Zaw[Greek]= animal
Reish[Hebrew]=resh=king
They were making fun of the animal King.

In my translation of the Torah I discovered that Elohim was always followed by Re(REY). Rey is Spanish for King, Rex is Latin for King, an obvious etymological connection to the original Hebrew word for King. It even connects to the Nazis third Reich.

The 'h' in Elohim is a throat clearing noise, so that it's better to write ELOCHIM RE. That's not a 'ch' as in chin. The letters in sequence are:
Aleph lamed chet yod mem
Next word: Resh yod

El=god
Och=us
Im=with
Re

Re was the original name of the Hebrew God. Ra is the Egyptian sun god, also sometimes pronounced Re.
Conclusion: Some of the ancient Hebrews worshiped the sun, for their children's sake.

I made the connection that the name Re was the precursor to the ancient Hebrew word for King REISH. The Greeks at the time of the crucifixion of Christ knew the Jewish word for King was reish, and made fun of him while he hung there dying.

ALEPH=ALIVE
BEYT=EGG
GYNMEL=BLACK WOMAN
CHEIT=AS AN EAGLE
HEIT=YOU WERE
DALET=A DOOR
VAV=AND FATHER
ZOYIN=HAD INTERCOURSE WITH
TSADEK=JUPITER/IOVE/JOVE
TEIT=UNDER
YOD=PURPLE
KAF=CAP
EL=GOD OR LAMED=LEARN
MEM=REMEMBER
NUN=DON'T
KSAMEK=TRUST
AYIN=NOTHING OR OYIN=HOSTILE
PEI=FAITH/BELIEF
QOF=MONKEY
REISH=KING
THAV=YOU WILL LOVE
SHIN=HOPE

 

[Jd755]

I speak Hebrew, no need to explain it.

If I may ask. Which did you learn first English or Hebrew?
Reason for asking is it helps me put your commentary across all threads into the right perspective.

 

[Gladius]

And if you speak Hebrew then you know ene=not, so the Essene Hebrews were the non-black Hebrews.
.

It's Ein, not Ene.

DALET=A DOOR

This is the only correct thing in your entire post.

QOF=MONKEY

That's modern Hebrew.

Everything you wrote here is completely made up and isn't worth commenting on. You're either using imagination or just translating by yourself in some very bad method.

If I may ask. Which did you learn first English or Hebrew?
Reason for asking is it helps me put your commentary across all threads into the right perspective.

Hebrew is my first language, but I could also speak English as a child.

 

[Jd755]

Hebrew is my first language, but I could also speak English as a child

Thank you.

 

[Achille]

Whether a shul, mosque, church or temple, religion has always been a form of control, it's group think and therefore, a PSYOP; the ultimate if-then-else statement.

Is that so? How interesting. Must we profess religious assent to this dogma you present in order to receive avowal, or is it up for disagreement?

Do you NEED to be told not to kill someone? To honor your parents?

It is quite clear from each and every field of knowledge, that human beings absolutely need to be taught the foundational principles of ethics, or they will quite literally devour each other, beginning with the most vulnerable elements of society. To say otherwise is equivalent to arguing, for instance, that a child does not "need" to be taught good manners, because somehow they're intrinsic to his or her nature. We're not birds, born knowing how to make a nest... we need to be taught, especially manners, by parents who are like God in our childlike eyes, and then such things as ethics and morals by teachers whose wisdom has always been considered as higher than the sum of individual human thoughts.

A God who would tell a primitive people in a world based on brute force and conquest, that not only they should not kill but rather not even covet their neighbors' goods, is as revolutionary and life-changing as the statements "love your enemies," "put down the sword," and "turn the other cheek" (even when the very people who claim to follow the one who said those things often chose to ignore them, proving that, if anything, we're quite deeply corrupted...).

by and large, most people are good and wish to live their lives in peace, not as murderous, abusive thugs.

That's beautiful.
Except, even children will be abusive bullies, given the opportunity...if not to their peers, to other living beings, or to inanimate objects...
Not sure what world I grew up in, but given that I have spent years in different countries, my experience shows that it's one very different from the above-described utopia...
Maybe a bit of time studying the natural surgence of organized crime across lands and times would be enlightening, before precipitously casting stones at religion or painting humanity with the broad stroke of natural goody-two-shoes striving for goodness and peace...

Is it likely for an all-powerful, enlightened Being to display human characteristics [...] To attribute human emotions to the Almighty is short-sighted yet, every religion and their texts does so.

I would hope a Creator would speak to his creatures in a language they can understand. I would hope an enlightened Creator would grasp exactly how much it would mean to creatures for God to appear in the image and likeness of a human. A man who suffered much once wrote:

In perfect love this law holds:
that the lover become like the one he loves;
for the greater their likeness the greater their delight.

Of course sounds much nicer in the original Spanish, but this will do.

If you want to prove God, you must first define God. Now you take the God of the Bible, but there are more books. So maybe you will define God first.

Why reinvent the wheel, when others have gone through the trouble? A bit of Scholastic theology goes a long way here.

never considering if the story is actually real, how said book came about, when it came into existence, who wrote it, how many people wrote it, was/when/why and by whom was it edited

Sometimes you can tell more about a cause by its effects, than by such inordinate amounts of knowledge. The infinitely simple should be simply understandable by all, not the limited realm of a chosen few.

If coding interests you, try the direction of gimmetria

An excellent suggestion. It has been said by more than one wise man, that everything is number. The danger is when we make up our own patters or misunderstand meanings. Yet this is a very interesting topic.

If you're a religious believer in god you might dismiss it entirely

Philosophically, it would be unfeasible for me to do so without contradicting some of the most basic principles of logic and reason.

the bible would be in the first lot tossed ... at its very core, it's a weapon designed to promote a specific set of thought patterns, fear and obedience. That's it. That's the 'message'. 'Believe in all this, or burn in the fires of hell forever'.

Interesting. Having read multiple versions in multiple languages, I was under the impression that there was a much higher purpose and message within. Then again, we see as we are.

In my opinion; the best evidence for an Intelligent Designer, is not from ancient texts written by the hands of men; but rather mathematical patterns found repeated in all of the Creation.

This is a wonderful starting point, but not everyone can see or understand such patterns. Which is why people tend to write things down or explain them in poetry, storytelling, parables, and whatnot...

taking verses out of context to support some kind of agenda, has plagued the church organization since the first century. At this point, any true believer should discard Christianity and organized religion as we know it

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No need to tear down a wonderful edifice in order to try and start from scratch from the floor plans, especially if we have no concept of how to build soundly. Much better to repair...

all 3 abrahamic religions do very little for women as a whole

Without Christianity, women would have no concept of rights. Even enlightened civilizations failed to recognize the true dignity of women, and offered nothing but subjugation.

In many ways it's a master/slave religion creating submissive and easily manipulated people by promising a better afterlife if one suffers through whatever hell the masters are doling out in this life.

Christianity is a tad bit more complex and demanding than that.

there are a gazillion flavors of 'christianity'

Not really.

God knowing what its creation will do is absolutely the definition of predetermination. By virtue of it knowing, events MUST follow accordingly. There is no free will left.

That is most definitely not how predestination works. That is why very intelligent people have spent quite some time writing about it. And while some have taken the shortcut of dismissing free will, it is but a dead end. Predestination is a direct consequence of omniscience, and in no way does it conflict with human free will. How could it be otherwise? Knowing one's choice is not the same as forcing one's choice.

Thinking it (reference to God is "it" in my lexicon because it contains both the divine masculine and divine feminine) is so small minded that it put codes in the bible (a group of books arbitrarily chosen by men) to "prove" its existence is like imagining you've wrapped you mind around and corralled infinity.

If we can find the Golden Ratio inside flowers, why can't we find a code in a book that billions consider sacred (regardless of how small-minded individuals believe its individual bits were chosen or by whom)?

man is made in God's image which means the ground of man's being is a reflection of God's being which is void/emptiness.

Yet nature abhors a vacuum, and that is the greatest limitation I myself found when I decided to move on from the various forms of Buddhism I was considering at one point. Self-emptying, or kenosis, cannot be but the beginning of the process...even in this our context of stolen history, unlearning lies is but the first step. There must be an objectively true history to learn (although some posit otherwise, epistemologically speaking).

this thread however, a total waste of time

No open conversation is ever truly a waste of time. Only mindless repetition, as it is an exercise in futility, and even then, it can find its purpose if one seeks to clear one's mind from intruding thoughts. That being said, I would have hoped that when the OP asks for objective evidence for the God of Scripture, anyone who professes no belief in - or has an axe to grind with - said God of Scripture would politely refrain from adding nothing to the conversation.

 

[Sunny]

Is that so? How interesting. Must we profess religious assent to this dogma you present in order to receive avowal, or is it up for disagreement?



It is quite clear from each and every field of knowledge, that human beings absolutely need to be taught the foundational principles of ethics, or they will quite literally devour each other, beginning with the most vulnerable elements of society. To say otherwise is equivalent to arguing, for instance, that a child does not "need" to be taught good manners, because somehow they're intrinsic to his or her nature. We're not birds, born knowing how to make a nest... we need to be taught, especially manners, by parents who are like God in our childlike eyes, and then such things as ethics and morals by teachers whose wisdom has always been considered as higher than the sum of individual human thoughts.

A God who would tell a primitive people in a world based on brute force and conquest, that not only they should not kill but rather not even covet their neighbors' goods, is as revolutionary and life-changing as the statements "love your enemies," "put down the sword," and "turn the other cheek" (even when the very people who claim to follow the one who said those things often chose to ignore them, proving that, if anything, we're quite deeply corrupted...).


That's beautiful.
Except, even children will be abusive bullies, given the opportunity...if not to their peers, to other living beings, or to inanimate objects...
Not sure what world I grew up in, but given that I have spent years in different countries, my experience shows that it's one very different from the above-described utopia...
Maybe a bit of time studying the natural surgence of organized crime across lands and times would be enlightening, before precipitously casting stones at religion or painting humanity with the broad stroke of natural goody-two-shoes striving for goodness and peace...



I would hope a Creator would speak to his creatures in a language they can understand. I would hope an enlightened Creator would grasp exactly how much it would mean to creatures for God to appear in the image and likeness of a human. A man who suffered much once wrote:


Of course sounds much nicer in the original Spanish, but this will do.




Why reinvent the wheel, when others have gone through the trouble? A bit of Scholastic theology goes a long way here.


Sometimes you can tell more about a cause by its effects, than by such inordinate amounts of knowledge. The infinitely simple should be simply understandable by all, not the limited realm of a chosen few.


An excellent suggestion. It has been said by more than one wise man, that everything is number. The danger is when we make up our own patters or misunderstand meanings. Yet this is a very interesting topic.


Philosophically, it would be unfeasible for me to do so without contradicting some of the most basic principles of logic and reason.


Interesting. Having read multiple versions in multiple languages, I was under the impression that there was a much higher purpose and message within. Then again, we see as we are.


This is a wonderful starting point, but not everyone can see or understand such patterns. Which is why people tend to write things down or explain them in poetry, storytelling, parables, and whatnot...


This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No need to tear down a wonderful edifice in order to try and start from scratch from the floor plans, especially if we have no concept of how to build soundly. Much better to repair...


Without Christianity, women would have no concept of rights. Even enlightened civilizations failed to recognize the true dignity of women, and offered nothing but subjugation.


Christianity is a tad bit more complex and demanding than that.



Not really.


That is most definitely not how predestination works. That is why very intelligent people have spent quite some time writing about it. And while some have taken the shortcut of dismissing free will, it is but a dead end. Predestination is a direct consequence of omniscience, and in no way does it conflict with human free will. How could it be otherwise? Knowing one's choice is not the same as forcing one's choice.



If we can find the Golden Ratio inside flowers, why can't we find a code in a book that billions consider sacred (regardless of how small-minded individuals believe its individual bits were chosen or by whom)?



Yet nature abhors a vacuum, and that is the greatest limitation I myself found when I decided to move on from the various forms of Buddhism I was considering at one point. Self-emptying, or kenosis, cannot be but the beginning of the process...even in this our context of stolen history, unlearning lies is but the first step. There must be an objectively true history to learn (although some posit otherwise, epistemologically speaking).



No open conversation is ever truly a waste of time. Only mindless repetition, as it is an exercise in futility, and even then, it can find its purpose if one seeks to clear one's mind from intruding thoughts. That being said, I would have hoped that when the OP asks for objective evidence for the God of Scripture, anyone who professes no belief in - or has an axe to grind with - said God of Scripture would politely refrain from adding nothing to the

Is that so? How interesting. Must we profess religious assent to this dogma you present in order to receive avowal, or is it up for disagreement?



It is quite clear from each and every field of knowledge, that human beings absolutely need to be taught the foundational principles of ethics, or they will quite literally devour each other, beginning with the most vulnerable elements of society. To say otherwise is equivalent to arguing, for instance, that a child does not "need" to be taught good manners, because somehow they're intrinsic to his or her nature. We're not birds, born knowing how to make a nest... we need to be taught, especially manners, by parents who are like God in our childlike eyes, and then such things as ethics and morals by teachers whose wisdom has always been considered as higher than the sum of individual human thoughts.

A God who would tell a primitive people in a world based on brute force and conquest, that not only they should not kill but rather not even covet their neighbors' goods, is as revolutionary and life-changing as the statements "love your enemies," "put down the sword," and "turn the other cheek" (even when the very people who claim to follow the one who said those things often chose to ignore them, proving that, if anything, we're quite deeply corrupted...).


That's beautiful.
Except, even children will be abusive bullies, given the opportunity...if not to their peers, to other living beings, or to inanimate objects...
Not sure what world I grew up in, but given that I have spent years in different countries, my experience shows that it's one very different from the above-described utopia...
Maybe a bit of time studying the natural surgence of organized crime across lands and times would be enlightening, before precipitously casting stones at religion or painting humanity with the broad stroke of natural goody-two-shoes striving for goodness and peace...



I would hope a Creator would speak to his creatures in a language they can understand. I would hope an enlightened Creator would grasp exactly how much it would mean to creatures for God to appear in the image and likeness of a human. A man who suffered much once wrote:


Of course sounds much nicer in the original Spanish, but this will do.




Why reinvent the wheel, when others have gone through the trouble? A bit of Scholastic theology goes a long way here.


Sometimes you can tell more about a cause by its effects, than by such inordinate amounts of knowledge. The infinitely simple should be simply understandable by all, not the limited realm of a chosen few.


An excellent suggestion. It has been said by more than one wise man, that everything is number. The danger is when we make up our own patters or misunderstand meanings. Yet this is a very interesting topic.


Philosophically, it would be unfeasible for me to do so without contradicting some of the most basic principles of logic and reason.


Interesting. Having read multiple versions in multiple languages, I was under the impression that there was a much higher purpose and message within. Then again, we see as we are.


This is a wonderful starting point, but not everyone can see or understand such patterns. Which is why people tend to write things down or explain them in poetry, storytelling, parables, and whatnot...


This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No need to tear down a wonderful edifice in order to try and start from scratch from the floor plans, especially if we have no concept of how to build soundly. Much better to repair...


Without Christianity, women would have no concept of rights. Even enlightened civilizations failed to recognize the true dignity of women, and offered nothing but subjugation.


Christianity is a tad bit more complex and demanding than that.



Not really.


That is most definitely not how predestination works. That is why very intelligent people have spent quite some time writing about it. And while some have taken the shortcut of dismissing free will, it is but a dead end. Predestination is a direct consequence of omniscience, and in no way does it conflict with human free will. How could it be otherwise? Knowing one's choice is not the same as forcing one's choice.



If we can find the Golden Ratio inside flowers, why can't we find a code in a book that billions consider sacred (regardless of how small-minded individuals believe its individual bits were chosen or by whom)?



Yet nature abhors a vacuum, and that is the greatest limitation I myself found when I decided to move on from the various forms of Buddhism I was considering at one point. Self-emptying, or kenosis, cannot be but the beginning of the process...even in this our context of stolen history, unlearning lies is but the first step. There must be an objectively true history to learn (although some posit otherwise, epistemologically speaking).



No open conversation is ever truly a waste of time. Only mindless repetition, as it is an exercise in futility, and even then, it can find its purpose if one seeks to clear one's mind from intruding thoughts. That being said, I would have hoped that when the OP asks for objective evidence for the God of Scripture, anyone who professes no belief in - or has an axe to grind with - said God of Scripture would politely refrain from adding nothing to the conversation.

my apologies, and i stand corrected. looking back, i'm not quite sure what came over me, bad day perhaps? i suspect it came from the sad realization; that while many are inclined to ask such questions, far less are inclined to take an honest look at the answers they recieve. i will endeavor to be more hopeful going forward. your contribution to this thread was for the most part spot on, thank you.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Except, even children will be abusive bullies, given the opportunity...if not to their peers, to other living beings, or to inanimate objects...
Not sure what world I grew up in, but given that I have spent years in different countries, my experience shows that it's one very different from the above-described utopia...
Maybe a bit of time studying the natural surgence of organized crime across lands and times would be enlightening, before precipitously casting stones at religion or painting humanity with the broad stroke of natural goody-two-shoes striving for goodness and peace...

You are judging the past by modern standards and modern experience. There is no way of knowing that the same situation existed 300 years ago, never mind 3,000. The mainstream narrative and religious texts are not reliable evidence, as any time spent browsing this forum will reveal. Any 'surgence' of organised crime implies that, prior to the surge, it was either much less or non-existent.

 

[Tapioca]

I translated Genesis, and discovered Ish(eesh)=black, as in Ishtar, or Ishene=Essene. It most certainly does mean 'black,' you are mistaken on this point, and I'm willing to discuss it further.

Hebrew:
שָׁחֹר - black - sha-khor
Strong's Hebrew: 7838. שָׁחֹר (shachor) -- black

אֵשׂ -fire - esh
Strong's Hebrew: 784. אֵשׁ (esh) -- a fire