I think there is deep meaning to this holy name "The I am that I am" how about "I and my father are one" and the "Ye are gods"


Please if you understand their deep meanings and how they can help us relate more effectively with God and our fellow men, kindly share the knowledge

Over time,i have also thought of this same question, but i thank God for giving me some knowlegde to understand some things.

God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is a mystery. It is a name revealed when Moses asked God for his name, hence it better expresses God as who he is.''The I Am That I Am''(Infinitely above everything that we can understand or say. He is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men).

Which foolish deep meaning again?

I am that I am simply means you are what you are! Simple

Tudór:

Which foolish deep meaning again?

I am that I am simply means you are what you are! Simple

Hi Tudor, this is not a foolish question, seems you have no idea what that means but thanks

^^
Hey, I tried my best. Anyway, you welcome.

Tudór:

^^
Hey, I tried my best. Anyway, you welcome.

Thanks, God bless

Cute500:

Over time,i have also thought of this same question, but i thank God for giving me some knowlegde to understand some things.

God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is a mystery. It is a name revealed when Moses asked God for his name, hence it better expresses God as who he is.''The I Am That I Am''(Infinitely above everything that we can understand or say. He is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men).

You are right, just like you said it's actually a mystery, the hidden God who is aslo very close to us. Jesus was full of his glory and declared "I and my father are one".

He is the God in us, our hope of glory. Lack of understanding of our union with God is the source of all probelms.

The more we understand this mystery the more we would be able to take our rightfull place in God

Tudór:

^^
Hey, I tried my best. Anyway, you welcome.

Hey, YOU!


Aren't you forgetting something ??

Tudór:

THEY ARE GETTING AN
ABORTION, DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!

@post
I Am that I Am simply means He is the GOD of all facet, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and you; when he told moses the Israelite's were in bondage to them at that time He was the God the deliverer. To someone how is facing challenges he is the God of solution, to the sick he is the God that heals.
I Am that I Am, think of it as an open Cheque, a master key,So what ever you what him to be in you life.
I Am the God of miracles
I Am the God of Peace
I Am the God of Hope
I Am the God of Health
I Am the God of finance, never ending God.

yes i have sat down and wondered what i am that i am means.

for me it means I am the only true God who was,who is and will be forever.accepting is hard but i exist anyway,and alwys present everywhere and in everything no matter how hard or easy the situation is.nothing happens without my knowing and allowing.

"I AM THAT I AM"

The most profound statement within scripture.

Man has often wondered "who created God": or whence, or how, God came to exist.

"I am that I am" - is a statement of self existence.

Namely that God exists in and of itself. It does not require a cause external to it to exist: it is by itself the very rationale for its own eternal self-existence.

You may read it in lay mans terms as - "The reason that I exist is because I am what I am" or - "I am the reason that I am."

This means that God could NOT "NOT exist": God per force exists because it could not be otherwise given the oneness of the eternal infinity that is self-existent and non-contingent. That is something that cannot be created beacause it intrinsically exists.

That is GOD.

This is the one and main thing that makes God different and unique from any other existent factor: because God is the only factor that is its own derivative rational: every other existent factor derives from that original and self-existent eternal factor which is called God.

@Deep Sight:

Interesting argument there. What do you think of Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological proof of God's existence?

^^^ I cannot place too much stock by it for the reason that it places as its starting point a factor that is conceived by or conceivable by the human mind.

In my view God's existence is not contingent on anything that may or may not be conceived by the human mind.

@Deep Sight:

Actually the Anselm argument is slightly flawed but not on that point (as in your criticism).

This argument is the reductio ad absurdum method (proof by contradiction) where an absurd notion is shown to be false by gradually enlarging it, or a given notion is gradually reduced to show that it is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd" is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true. This of course only works if it is not a false dichotomy. Meaning that, if there are other choices than true or false (like undefined or something entirely different), then this form of proof is a logical fallacy.

Anselm's argument was that IF you can think about it, then that can't be it. So you guys are saying the same thing in essence, I think.

@Deep Sight:

I mentioned Anselm because your explanation of God's I-am-ness somehow reminded me of the ontological argument.

Appreciated: but here's the subtlety: he seeks to prove that a real element exists by showing that it can not be the element in man's thoughts. So it still starts with a proof beginning with an element in man's thoughts.

I don't think that it is apt to approach the existence of God with elements from man's thoughts for the simple reason that God is absolutely non-contingent.

I may very easily say as a crude example: if I may think about the spagetti monster - then the thought can not be the reality itself and as such the reality of a spaggetti monster must per force exist. It simply does not follow in any terms: and at all events spagetti monsters may be said to be contingent on the existence of spagetti - God's existence is not contingent on anythinmg but itself - thus an appeal to human conceptions or the absence thereof cannot be a basis for asserting that such a reality must exist.

[Edit:] I think the argument is altogether inapplicable to a correct understanding of God's self existence. The fact the a thing in our thoughts is not the thing itself can not prove that the thing itself must needs exist outside our thoughts. God exists irrespective of what we may or may not conceive.

If followed, ultimately we would reach a place where that argument would mean that if man cannot conceive a thing, a real version of it does not exist - and as such when man could not conceive black holes, black holes did not exist. No, it doesn't work for me at all. An argument for the existence of God cannot start from what man may conceive

Just cause some book says God said it dosen't mean it was said by some invisible man in the sky. Myth na the language of the times. The same people that just argued that u can't judge ancient times by modern standards, on amala thread,  seem not to understand that u can't read ancient texts using modern literal interpretations. So fukn ironic. 

^^^ There is no literal interpretation being applied (save that which was put forward by Tudor):

What I discuss is an existential interpretation that goes to the root of the cosmological question.

@Deep Sight:

I understand that, perfectly well. Here's yet another subtlety that you seem to have missed:

Anselm's argument is that if God is indeed the most perfect being, THEN He must perforce be perfect in wisdom, in other ramifications and thus in EXISTENCE also.

Perfection in existence? This means He can't exist in our minds. He must exist outside our minds since the real and extant substance is more perfect than that which exists only in the imagination.

I don't think that it is apt to approach the existence of God with elements from man's thoughts for the simple reason that God is absolutely non-contingent.

You said, and that is the point too. Being perfect, He must needs be more perfect than even contingence itself.

This argument cannot apply to the Spaghetti Monster UNLESS of course the Spaghetti Monster is considered the most perfect being. In which case, the philosopher has assumed God in his imagination using the name "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

My own criticisms of Anselm's argument is that he intends to analyze an entity via its own definition. That's weak analysis IMHO.

But indeed, its an interesting argument and the first of all ontological arguments.

#okBye enough thread derailing from me. Lol. Apologies. . .

All these abstractions are meaningless IMO. God is no mystery. . . God is whatever each individual can conjure up and be comfortable with. For some it is a stone in the yard, and for some it's some complex intellectual abstraction, and for some it's some strange guy that visited Abraham (before he became so strange that no one could see his face, hence the fire  ), for some it's a human being that got nailed to a cross. There is no right or wrong answer. It's whatever works for u.

Religion is about what u do,  what u believe don't mean $hit. People debate belief systems all day, hurl insults at each other, then call themselves believers in God and the vision of Jesus. I laugh in Klingon.


Kinda funny how even the bible details the evolution of the concept of God.

InesQor:

@Deep Sight:

I understand that, perfectly well. Here's yet another subtlety that you seem to have missed:

Anselm's argument is that if God is indeed the most perfect being, THEN He must perforce be perfect in wisdom, in other ramifications and thus in EXISTENCE also.

This is an assumption that his argument does nothing to prove and as such he can not use this as a premise.

Perfection in existence? This means He can't exist in our minds.

This is just incongruous. Moving from elements in our thoughts tp presumptions of perfection outside our thoughts. Nah.

I think you summed up how ridiculous this is when you said -

Quote from Inesqor -

My own criticisms of Anselm's argument is that he intends to analyze an entity via its own definition. That's weak analysis IMHO.

But indeed, its an interesting argument and the first of all ontological arguments.

It is a nonsensical argument, first or not. Rene Descartes does not do much better, in my view.

Krayola:

All these abstractions are meaningless IMO. God is no mystery. . . God is whatever each individual can conjure up and be comfortable with. For some it is a stone in the yard, and for some it's some complex intellectual abstraction, and for some it's some strange guy that visited Abraham (before he became so strange that no one could see his face, hence the fire ), for some it's a human being that got nailed to a cross. There is no right or wrong answer. It's whatever works for u.

None of these elements approaches the non-contingent element inferred by the words "I am that I am."

Religion is about what u do, what u believe don't mean $hit.

Au contraire, religion is about what you believe, and what you believe dont mean $hit. What you DO - is what qualifies your spirituality and is what remains of value.

People debate belief systems all day, hurl insults at each other, then call themselves believers in God and the vision of Jesus. I laugh in Klingon.

Na so. Won't life be boring otherwise?

@Deep Sight:

Nonsense argument? No, not at all. It is yet respected in philosophy though most theologians think it's a joke. Alright then.

Krayola:


Kinda funny how even the bible details the evolution of the concept of God.

And yet they say he is immutable and unchangeable! Na wah!

@deepsight.  WHat i'm saying is pretty much anything, like that "I am who is"  statement, can be interpreted to mean anything. That's part of why I try to avoid theological debates cause people will just start quoting bible verses and interpreting them at will without any real context whatsoever. The other day I asked Inesqor about Abraham's promise and he quoted something from Galatians. I didn't know how to respond to that cause I don't know how God made a promise to Abraham in Galatians. To me that is a later writer imposing recent events on the older texts. But that's a whole other story.

@krayola:

If you really read my post that day, you would see that the Galatians verse referenced the Genesis verse. I was looking back in time. Ok whats the difference? You believe It should be considered looking forward.

God said "In you shall ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD be blessed". This prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Its only in that one man that all are blessed at once.

But thats the nature of prophecies with respect to logic. Logic can only understand prophecy in retrospect. Thus that was the closest I could get. Its all good. . .

Sarmy, "I AM THAT I AM" is the name of God. Remember the story of Moses, when he was asked to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. He asked, who should I say sent me. And God said, "I AM THAT I AM," the God of your fathers sent me. Now what most Christians do not know is that God, the "I AM" individualized Himself in all His creation. That is why we all have life & can move about. There is the Flame of God in our hearts, refered to as God the Holy Ghost. The withdrawal of this Flame means death. In order words we all have a God Presence in us, the Director of our lives. This accounts for the statements of our Lord Jesus Christ, "I and my father are one," "Ye are Gods," "The things I do shall ye do, even greater things." Even the ascension can you make. Hence Jesus Christ gave the public example of the ascension, so mankind can emulate Him. But unfortunately we dwell more on the crucifiction, rather than the ascension. One Hobbo Bill ascended in the United States less than 6 years ago. It was in one of their Newspapers. I dont have details now. So many others have made the ascension. Death is not the way for God's children to make heaven. You can confirm what I have said here by calling on your own God Presence, or Jesus Christ to reveal the truth to you. Be serious & persistent, They must answer you. Our God Presence is waiting for us all to recognize His Presence with us. That is the only way He can act through us, & we experience Gods beauty & miracles in our lives. Talk to your God Presence as you would your Father. You will tell me, "Its true, you said so." However for more information, visit the site of Saint Germain Foundation.

the thread goes south from here on