A right am

An idea that I’ve been introduced to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

I don’t think I understand this idea well

I have thought about the words “I am” or “I’m”, innocently I suppose

I’ve compared this use of the word “am” when describing myself with the biblical excerpt

I also tend to think in terms of “not that”

I think its arrogant to think of oneself using the word “Am” in this same biblical sense

I’ve thought “I’m not God, however, I am”.

I’ve thought “What does it mean to apply NOT to this idea?” - Frankly, I don’t think I can understand this nor want to understand this, however, I can juxtapose the words “not am” and encapsulate the idea.

I’ve heard “God is everywhere” aka omnipresent

However, with my use of the words “I am” (in reference to myself)… I think… well I’m not God, however, its not the case that I “not am”… or perhaps, its not the case that I “am not” (not sure what makes more sense). I may be unwittingly interchanging the subject and verb in my thoughts here - not sure.

To be clear, I can’t actually make any sense of the words “not am”, as I can’t really imagine it.

I also tend to think in terms of a false choice. If an objective coin existed with the ideas of “am” and “not am” on either side (I do frankly feel atrocious for this simplification), I don’t think I would identify with either side of this coin. (Please give consideration for my lack of ability to correctly respect capitalization of the word “am”)

Strictly objectively (and in my opinion a poor objectification (at/if?) that), I think - The “I am” I’ve contemplated using when thinking of myself (or any given person) - I think of this as somewhat of a fork of the said objective coin.

I’d call it a “right am”.

I’m not committed to these ideas though.

With this I have asked for a name change

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193071

What do you think of what Jesus asked, ---- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

What would you answer?

I would answer no. So would all Gnostic Christians.

Regards
DL

I should have qualified the “I am” in that sentence. Perhaps “I am (human).” or “I am (alive).”

I think I’ll wait on that question some :slight_smile:

It merely meant “What is, is what is” or “I am that which is”. Hebrew had no personal pronouns.

I am not so sure that Christ asked the question

In the mind of Christ, there would have been only one God - The Father, the Judaic/Christian God.

I disagree based on these verses.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

A D

I do agree that Jesus used the word Father to show his relationship to the God he followed but that was a really old tradition that he just continued to use. Not that I blame him because in that day, that was the tradition which was way older than Christianity.

Judaic/Christian God does not really apply as Christianity did not exist.

So, seeing as how Jesus was a Jew, and preaching on the Jewish religion, we have to judge what he meant from a Jewish rabbi’s POV.

I see Jesus, since he was rather anti-organized religion, and thought them all corrupted, —

Isaiah 56:11) “They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one” But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, “you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked” (Malachi 3:18)

— would likely have been a Karaite Jew who, like Gnostic Christians put God below man where he belongs.

That is why Jesus had no problem saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

I extrapolate from that that Jesus would also say that religions and Gods are made for man and not man for them.

Jesus said he came to serve man, not have man serve him as a God.

Scriptures say that God does not change yet Christians expect that God wants them to serve him when he, as Jesus, said he wanted to serve and not be served.

Christianity is so ass backwards it is no wonder thinking people reject it’s immoral ideology.

Regards
DL

I’ve always taken the phrase “I am that I am,” to mean more than juts “I am”. The “…that I am,” qualifies it, in my opinion, to mean “I am existence, I am being.” This phrase, imparted to Moses from the burning bush, was the turning point in Western religion that converted it from polytheism to monotheism. It is essentially a revelation that all things, including other gods, come from one source, the highest god. Henotheism acts as a bridge between this turning point and the monotheism of Christianity that we know today. Henotheism is the belief in multiple gods but that they are all manifestations of the one true God. It required another turning point in Western religion to say that the other gods were false gods (i.e. demons) and that the one true God never really poses as other gods.

Greatest I am,

I don’t follow your reasoning here, Greatest I Am. In what way does the above quote point to us being gods?
What do you think Matthew was speaking about when he used the word single?

I was baptized a catholic and raised in two catholic orphanages so I kind of have an understanding of certain things, not all things but some things. Christ ~ if there was a Christ would not have used language like that since he was against idolatry and worship of any other god but his father.

The First Commandment…
I Am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Again, what does THIS have to do with the statement: Have you forgotten that you are gods?
All that this is about to me is having God’s presence in one’s life if one loves god and observes his precepts.
This doesn’t make us gods.
If a slave obeys his master and even loves him, is that slave the master by reason of that obeying and loving?

If I understand this one, Paul is speaking about Christ being the Son of God. He is also speaking about Christ’s divine nature. He had both a divine nature and a human nature.

But none of those quotes state that we are gods with God.

Not that you blame him? lol That was cute. The word he used was Abba which showed the real personal relationship that they shared…son and father. The same kind of relationship which most believers share with their God…abba is similar to Daddy.

Christ was both Jew and Gentile.

Yes, he saw many corrupt and condemned them.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

Basically what he said.
But do you believe that there is an eternal hell?

I don’t know anything about the Karaite Jews. God below man?
I may be agnostic but no matter how you define God as personal creator and god or just as some kind of awesome energy First Cause, who could possibly put man above that?

Oh, I think it was for a little of both. The Sabbath was a day of worship toward God and also man needs to have something to worship. We all need something to worship no matter what it is to give life meaning, to make our spirits grow and soar.

I can agree with this. Christ didn’t found Christianity. But could he have possibly made a statement like that since there was no Christianity at that time.

Supposedly, this is exactly what Christ did - serve his fellow man, reach out them in love and compassion, speak the truth about things, et cetera.
As for the second part, I can’t be sure. He did say that he and the father were One. That would suppose for me that his disciples apostles and friends would recognize his divinity and serve him as a God but I might be wrong in this. There would have to be a lot of text studied in order to know this, to really know what was in the mind of god. I say this with tongue in cheek since I am an agnostic and I have come such a long way since my days of being a catholic.

I don’t know if God as God is in reality IS capable of change. We would have to have all the answers, wouldn’t we, in order to know this? I for one could not possibly know this.

.
Christianity is based on faith and belief. What are your beliefs? Have you examined them lately to see how backwards they might be? :evilfun:
Actually, there are probably a great many thinking people who accept their ideology.
But I do know what you are saying. That’s why I am an agnostic despite my upbringing.

People do need faith and something to believe in. We pick and choose according to what our needs and desires are and how comfortably we can live in our coccoons.
The mind creates all sorts of ipsundrums. They are absorbed and adopted and become part of what we fancy to be truth.

Regards to you too.

Thanks.

My answer are more for a believer than an agnostic so do allow some artistic liberty.

Regards
DL

Thank you for stating this. I would say this gets at the way I understood it the first time.