Is there only one true God ?

[harfim]

Originally Posted by Dondi

The way Christians see this is that God is the Savior, and the method He used to save mankind is through Christ. So Christ is the Savior sent from God. The whole operation is ordained by God. It's sorta a family run business. We have a furniture place called Doyle's. And while the father started the business, the sons run the operation. They are his hands and feet. But he is ultimately in charge and he makes the rules on how to make the business work in order that the name Doyle will have integrity and a good reputation.

It is intriguing that Christianity believes that God used a Savior to achieve his purpose. God had to reach mankind - he coud have "sent a voice from Heaven" to be heard by all mankind on earth - but he chose a man to convey his message. Jesus is blessed to be that man. There is a prophecy that Jesus will come back - I believe, not because he is God, but because it is the wish of God - yes, God - that he should and in good time. God, through Jesus, will end all argument and mankind will be in one with each other.

[mee]

[quote=harfim;131381]It is intriguing that Christianity believes that God used a Savior to achieve his purpose. /quote]





Gods original purpose was to have humans live forever on a paradise earth ,that was the ORIGiNAL purpose of God, but as we all know from the Genesis account that purpose has had a spanner thrown into the works ,and the instigator of all of the problems that have happened to humans since that time was the rebel and oposser of God . (satan) it is because of him that we are in a dieing state and are all born in imperfection

but straight away after the bad deed was done , God put something in place to fix it , and yes it involves Jesus who is Gods son. to get back everlasting life a RANSOM had to be paid to cover the sin. Adam lost everlasting life even though he was created perfect , so it needed a nother perfect life to pay the price , and no man could pay that price because all humans are imperfect and born in a sinful state , but Jesus was not under sin like the rest of us so only Jesus could pay the price. he was a perfect man like Adam was, but Adam only passed on to us imperfection but Jesus will give us everlasting life back again

RANSOM

A price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of “ransom” is a price that covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while “redemption” emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid. The most significant ransom price is the shed blood of Jesus Christ, which made deliverance from sin and death possible for the offspring of Adam.

That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—ROMANS 5;12

So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man (adam)many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. ROMANS 5;18-19

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Dondi

The way Christians see this is that God is the Savior, and the method He used to save mankind is through Christ. So Christ is the Savior sent from God. The whole operation is ordained by God. It's sorta a family run business. We have a furniture place called Doyle's. And while the father started the business, the sons run the operation. They are his hands and feet. But he is ultimately in charge and he makes the rules on how to make the business work in order that the name Doyle will have integrity and a good reputation.

Wonderful explanation Dondi. Okay I understand what you are saying but Doyle senior is not aware of the future, he simply accepts he cannot run the business by himself so brings in his son to help. I think we both accept that G-d has no such limitations

G-d on the other hand knows everything, for all time and of course is capable of anything and everything. So why would He say He is the saviour and then later decide to give His 'son' that responsibility, surely as He knows everything He would have always said I shall send a son to be your saviour?

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Wonderful explanation Dondi. Okay I understand what you are saying but Doyle senior is not aware of the future, he simply accepts he cannot run the business by himself so brings in his son to help. I think we both accept that G-d has no such limitations

Realize that this was a simple analogy. I didn't intent to make it so comprehensive as to include clarvoiancy and omnipotience. You are right that God is unlimited in what He can do. But I somewhat disagree with you assessment of Doyle. Let's stretch the analogy a little further, since you added these factors. As far as predicting the future, a saavy business man would be aware of market indicators in the furniture business and adjust his strategy to anticipate market changes and future trends, so in a manner of speaking, he would have to know the future. What company doesn't have at least a five year plan? Moreover, the senior Doyle could run the business by himself, if he wanted to, though he'd be stretching himself (the limits of man).

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

G-d on the other hand knows everything, for all time and of course is capable of anything and everything. So why would He say He is the saviour and then later decide to give His 'son' that responsibility, surely as He knows everything He would have always said I shall send a son to be your saviour?

Do you have children, MW? I have two, both daughters. Now let's suppose that I wanted to teach my 10 year old how to play soccer. And in doing so I show the basic skills by demonstrating how to dribble the ball and kick a goal. But if I never let her try those skills herself, what good is it to teach her how to play? Later on, when she becomes proficient in soccer and her team makes it to the championship game, can you imagine how proud me as a father would be? "That's my daughter out there", I would beam, "I taught her to play."

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

[Raksha]

but the bible tells us just the opposite to that , so it seems that the Jews were wrong to stop using his name , sticking to the holy scriptures means that we are not led along with all kinds of things that are in opposition to God.

Mee,

This is only my second post on this forum, my first post to you and it will probably be my last. It's only the Jehovah's Witnesses who say things like, "it seems the Jews were wrong to stop using his name..." I wonder if you have any idea just how arrogant and self-rightous a remark like that that sounds to a born Jew?

It's a standing problem with Christianity in general, of course, but even more so with the JWs and the Seventh-Day Adventists. I mean this smug, self-righteous assumption that the newer religion has a right to critique and actually "correct" a MUCH older religion, to make authoritative pronouncements to said older religion as to where we were "wrong"?

God's name in Hebrew is not pronounced "Jehovah." The true pronunciation of it has been lost, and the closest approximation to it in traditional or even non-traditional Judaism is when the Divine Name is spelled out in Hebrew letters in some forms of meditation, usually synchronized with breathing. "Hashem" (the Name) is also used by Orthodox Jews to refer to God, but that's as close as it ever gets.

All of these restrictions arose to avoid the possibility of profaning God's name...just FYI.

--Linda

[China Cat Sunflower]

JEWISH OFFICIAL:
Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATTHIAS:
Do I say 'yes'?
STONE HELPER #1:
Yes.
MATTHIAS:
Yes.
OFFICIAL:
You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD:
Ooooh!
OFFICIAL:
...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD:
Ahh!
MATTHIAS:
Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
CROWD:
Oooooh!
OFFICIAL:
Blasphemy!

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi again Linda!

The whole neo-Israelite thing really is annoying, isn't it?

Chris

[wil]

Namaste all,

Raksha, Welcome to CR, clearly hope to continue to hear from you.

Dondi/MW, interesting discussion, something was just made abundantly clear to me in the moment, we'll see if it lasts the day.

Jesus Christ is the saviour, FOR CHIRSTIANS!! Muslims, Jews, Bahai, Hindus, you've got your own system perfectly workable for you. You don't accept Jesus as son of G!d as G!d incarnate as the Messiah??? DUH!! You are not Christians, that is something Christians do!

If I added chocolate to vanilla cake, it wouldn't be vanilla cake anymore. Vanilla cake is good, it doesn't need chocolate.

(please note the above is just an analogy, currently existing as a live vegan, got no use for vanilla or chocolate cake)

[Sean H.]

Bahais accept that Jesus is the Son of God. We simply believe that this is a spiritual station and not a literal one.

We view Jesus and all Manifestations of God through analogies. one such analogy is that the Manifestations of God are perfect mirrors reflecting God's attributes to mankind. We believe that Jesus was the Messiah. We also believe that Baha'u'llah is the new name of Christ and the return of Christ both prophesied in the Bible.

The statement "one true God" seems rather strange to me, almost implying that different religions worship different Gods and only one of them is correct. I worship the God of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahai Faith.

There is one God; mankind is one; the foundations of religion are one. Let us worship Him, and give praise for all His great Prophets and Messengers who have manifested His brightness and glory.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 20)

[Raksha]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hi again Linda!

The whole neo-Israelite thing really is annoying, isn't it?

Chris

Chris,

"Annoying" is the understatement of the year! You'd think I'd be used to "all that" after all the years I've been dealing with it (or not dealing with it), but I seem to have LESS tolerance for it all the time. Partly it's all this "End Times" millennial stuff, with the fundies actually trying to force God's hand with regard to the "Battle of Armageddon." They are now explicitly trying to encourage war between the Palestinians and Israelis. All this "Christian Zionist" revenge fantasizing raises the stakes well beyond the level of a parlor game. I mean, that stuff is dangerous and people could end up getting hurt, so of course I'm concerned about it...and I'm not the only one either.

But even the relatively innocuous "critiquing" gets on my nerves as much as it ever did. The Jewish religion was NOT some prefabricated gift from God that was given to us once and for all at Mount Sinai, no matter what anyone says. It evolved over a long period of time and it evolved out of Semitic paganism--just like you'd expect! I don't really care whose toes I step on by stating the obvious, or whether they are Jews or Christians.

An aside to any Jewish lurkers: I'm well aware that however it came about, the Covenant is still in effect and I am still bound by it, since that was decided before my birth. I gave my consent by being born to Jewish parents and I'm not trying to squirm out of it now--although I will admit to pushing the envelope now and then!

--Linda

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Realize that this was a simple analogy.

Salaam Dondi

I realise it was a simple analogy and of course there is no analogy to G-d so we are very limited by human speach and therefore have to fumble around trying to undestand each other.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Do you have children, MW?

Unfortunately I am unable to have children, so can only imagine what it feels like to be a proud parent and no doubt I do not do it justice.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Later on, when she becomes proficient in soccer and her team makes it to the championship game, can you imagine how proud me as a father would be? "That's my daughter out there", I would beam, "I taught her to play."

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

And this is my difficulty - why would G-d need or want a child? What is it that G-d is defficient in that would require someone to 'carry on the family business'? G-d has communicated with humans through Angels and Prophets since the beginning of time, so why didn't He either mention the coming of a son or at least say My son will be your saviour? He clearly says He will be our saviour and Jesus tells us to worship only G-d. What is it you believe Jesus (pbuh) can achieve that G-d cannot achieve without the assistance of Jesus (pbuh)?

One of my worries about Christianity while growing up was this attitude of calling G-d 'the Father', which suggested a very human relationship and this has continued to the point where people now speak of G-d as a human father, with all the emotions that go along with human parentage. To me that feels wrong, we are trying to understand and limit the unknowable.

Originally Posted by wil

Dondi/MW, interesting discussion, something was just made abundantly clear to me in the moment, we'll see if it lasts the day.

Did it?

Originally Posted by wil

You are not Christians, that is something Christians do!

And I am trying to understand why Christians do it.

I don't want anyone taking insult from this comment as I am just trying to explain what it looks like from outside Christianity. G-d sends a mercy and blessing for mankind, in the form of a sinless man, he brings a message from G-d for everyone to follow. A beautiful message of peace and love, which if everyone followed (not payed lip service to) would create an amazing world. People then say 'let's worship the messenger'. Again with Mary, the mother of Jesus (pbut), people decided to worship her - they were both tangible, real, somthing to latch onto that didn't need absolute trust to believe in. You now see parades with statues of Mary & Jesus (pbut), which to me is idol worship. People creating idols and worshipping them but then saying they are not really worshipping them -sorry but when someone flies across the world to touch a statue in the belief it will cure them of sickness then that in my mind is clear idol worship.

In my minds eye G-d must be getting pretty frustrated with people by now. He keeps sending messengers to help us and we, in different ways, decide to worship the messenger (think teddy bear names!!!). I can imagine a booming voice from the sky saying 'what is wrong with you people, can't you understand a simple message?'

Anyone seen the life of Brian?? Okay it was a comedy but to me it was a clear look into out belief systems and showed peoples need to have something tangible to believe in. Maybe this is a clear test from G-d, abandon such practices, accept there is nothing tangible to cling onto and then you may pass the test?

Originally Posted by wil

If I added chocolate to vanilla cake, it wouldn't be vanilla cake anymore. Vanilla cake is good, it doesn't need chocolate.

Absolutely correct and exactly how I see G-d. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Don't add anything, G-d doesn't need anything added, He is perfect exactly as He is.

Take the Holy Spirit, Muslims accept this but we don't see it as a seperate part of G-d, it is still just G-d.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What is it that G-d is defficient in that would require someone to 'carry on the family business'? G-d has communicated with humans through Angels and Prophets since the beginning of time, so why didn't He either mention the coming of a son or at least say My son will be your saviour? He clearly says He will be our saviour and Jesus tells us to worship only G-d. What is it you believe Jesus (pbuh) can achieve that G-d cannot achieve without the assistance of Jesus (pbuh)?

It may seem ridiculous, after communicating with us through angels and prophets, that God would not, once again send another angel or prophet as messenger as he had done before.

But if people expected angels and prophets, then that is what they'd expect everytime God was to send us a message. Some guy would appear out there on the streets to preach a message of doom, to repent of one's sins and mend one's ways.

It may have been that this time God didn't want to send an angel or "prophet," and nor did He want to reveal Himself directly or His glory by opening up the sky so that a light would shine through, as happened at Mt. Sinai. Such an appearance would have been too obvious. He did want to reveal Himself, but not directly, so He sent a man as a masquerader for His plan, agenda and purpose. Those who personally understood God were able to identify the "masquerader," as one who dedicates His life to God becomes more vigilant of things that are "godly." To everyone else he was just an ordinary man or spoke of ordinary politics and ideology.

That's at least the way I'd see it. Christianity therefore, is a faith that seeks to remember the life of this "covert agent/operative" who presented a world, a kingdom that was unlike any kingdom in our world, and ideas that were weird because they weren't like the politics and ideology we've had since the beginning of humanity. He presented us with an invitation to come and live in that world, and Christianity seeks to preserve that story.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

One of my worries about Christianity while growing up was this attitude of calling G-d 'the Father', which suggested a very human relationship and this has continued to the point where people now speak of G-d as a human father, with all the emotions that go along with human parentage. To me that feels wrong, we are trying to understand and limit the unknowable.

My impression is that "father" hasn't always been used to mean a biological parent, or even a relationship with feelings for such an individual.

I've seen the word "father" used to refer to a religious leader, a master, a teacher or the founder of a nation/religion/political system. ie. the Founding Fathers of the American political system. There are examples in the Bible where the future King David calls the incumbent King Saul, then his master, his father. When Elijah is taken up into heaven, Elisha calls out saying, "My father! My father! You are gone!" Elijah was not Elisha's biological father. He was a prophet. Elisha had his own family. Elisha later became a prophet himself, probably immediately, so Elijah could be seen as a mentoring prophet and Elisha his student/pupil. That's one way to understand our relationship with God. We have our own parents and God is just our Mentor. It is true that I can't have the same feelings for God as I have for my parents. God will never die, so I can't cry for the pain I feel when something bad happens.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

And I am trying to understand why Christians do it.

People then say 'let's worship the messenger'. Again with Mary, the mother of Jesus (pbut), people decided to worship her - they were both tangible, real, somthing to latch onto that didn't need absolute trust to believe in.

Christians are just trying to resurrect and relive the first-century experience. Well that's just my justification and explanation. That is a reason why we continue the tradition. We are trying to rediscover it. . . . or at least that is how I will put it. That is my policy. That is the conservative claim that I will make.

There will of course be Christians that proclaim boldly that they have it, that this is Christianity, that we didn't fail to preserve the first-century tradition, but I disagree. Christianity has broken into thousands of fragments. That could never have happened to the Gospel united in one Spirit.

The New Testament doesn't say much about Mary, so I doubt if devotion to Mary existed in the first century. The "Jesus worship" is definitely influenced by the New Testament because the NT contains "hints" that seem to suggest we're supposed to see things that way (not that I agree).

I believe contemporary Christianity is more influenced by traditions in the fourth century than the first century. The New Testament is definitely a written tradition from the first century, but our interpretation of that written tradition is something I reckon comes from the fourth century onwards. The Trinity controversies and "Jesus worship" are influenced by traditions that originated in the fourth century and onwards. Because we acknowledge and accept many of the conclusions and decisions made in the fourth century, this is a barrier to us understanding the first century tradition.

This view I have was something I developed while looking for information on Noahidism. I was asking myself, can a Christian be a Noahide? I came across a web site that saw the origins of Christianity in the context of a culture rooted in Judaism. If you haven't heard the term before, Noahides are people who have committed themselves to Judaism, not as Jews but as adherents of Judaism following the Seven Noahidic Laws. It's similar to a dhimmi in Islam, ie. Righteous Gentiles.

Here's the link to the web site I came across:

MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: Christianity in Context

This is a quote at the very end, though I'd encourage you to read the whole article if you want get further insights on how to think of Christianity.

Later on, when this Jewish movement in­tersected with Greek philosophical thought and as its adherents attempted to explain how God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit were related, the doctrine of the "Trinity" developed.

It may explain where Trinity came from, Greek philosophical thought with its frame of reference and ways of examining and analysing philosophies caused Christianity to develop the idea of a triune God. The Trinity may have been influenced more by the phenomenon of gnossis, which sought to define the nature, structure and properties of the universe whereas Judaism was more interested in the role, function and purpose of concepts in life and in religion. That is perhaps why there is no Trinity in the New Testament. It wasn't part of the first-century tradition. The tradition of the Trinity arose out of the practice of gnossis. This in no way discredits Christianity, because we still have the New Testament as reference, which existed before the gnossis phenomenon took hold. Christianity just took a wrong turn at a particular stage in its history.

As the gulf between Christianity and Judaism grew and as Christianity drew closer to Greek philosophy, Christianity lost touch with the way Judaism analysed, examined, evaluated and criticised religious concepts and attitudes. "Jesus worship" may have been a result of Christianity losing its intimacy with Judaism and not being able to understand Jesus' relationship with God as the first-century Christians actually saw it.

Even if Jesus was important to the first-century Christians (many of them Jews), if he became too important that would be idolatry, which violated both Jewish beliefs and one of the Noahide Laws. That may mean that Christianity was meant to be more of a fad for the Jews, who were using it more to achieve a paradigm shift than to actually see Jesus that way for eternity or a lifetime. Well . . . what I mean is, they wouldn't have seen it the way Christians see him today. Moreover, they had Judaism, which would have provided a rich sea of alternative concepts. Jesus may have been just a part of this rich sea of concepts, rather than the centre of Christianity today.

Modern Christianity finds it hard to dilute "Jesus worship" because it doesn't have Judaism to supply alternative concepts. Jesus just takes over. This, I believe, is the first-century experience/tradition that Christianity has lost. I believe if we are to properly understand Christianity, we can only rediscover it by exploring Judaism. The purpose of Islam may have been to call Christianity back to Judaism, but it may have strayed from that purpose by asserting its own identity. It may have been the same for Christianity. What if we were all meant to be Noahides? I wonder.

But anyway . . . this is just my speculation.

[Raksha]

But if people expected angels and prophets, then that is what they'd expect everytime God was to send us a message. Some guy would appear out there on the streets to preach a message of doom, to repent of one's sins and mend one's ways.

Saltmeister,

If God were to send a prophet nowadays, what do you think that person would look like and sound like in the 21st century? Do you really believe he or she would wear "biblical" clothing, herd sheep for a living and speak in "biblical" language? What exactly would be the "message of doom" for this time in history, and what sins would the world be called to repent for?

It is my belief that there are thousands of prophets in the world right now (many if not most using the Internet), and they are all desperately trying to get the world's attention, occasionally with some limited success but not most of the time.

--Linda

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Saltmeister,

If God were to send a prophet nowadays, what do you think that person would look like and sound like in the 21st century? Do you really believe he or she would wear "biblical" clothing, herd sheep for a living and speak in "biblical" language? What exactly would be the "message of doom" for this time in history, and what sins would the world be called to repent for?

It is my belief that there are thousands of prophets in the world right now (many if not most using the Internet), and they are all desperately trying to get the world's attention, occasionally with some limited success but not most of the time.

--Linda

Hello and greetings, Linda . . .

I hope I didn't say anything untoward there.

I don't doubt that you, I or MW might be legitimately regarded as one of those people, however small and humble our opinions may be. It may sound ridiculous for us to regard ourselves as "prophets," but methinks many of the prophets of the past were ordinary people who had no idea they were part of something Big.

Does it matter that some of us are Jews, Christians and Muslims, other adherents of other traditions? Maybe not so much if we understand each other's traditions. Most of us are more focused on one particular tradition. If we could start developing broader knowledge bases, that'd be good. I'm not saying you should dilute the one tradition you actually follow, but you could at least explore the others to see where you fit in with their beliefs. ie. to be a Christian, Noahide and dhimmi at the same time and seek to be recognised and accepted in some way by the other traditions. (By the way, I won't be paying any taxes to adherents of another faith. I will simply acknowledge their beliefs.)

Can we be prophets too? It would depend on one's definition of "prophet." The prophets we revere in the Bible are just people we regard as heroes. They were people of great devotion to God and actually connected with Him. But who knows how many more "prophets" were out there whose stories have never been written down?

If we are to be prophets, I suppose it's our humility and devotion to God that make us so, and it doesn't matter how humble and insignificant our contributions. What matters is that we're part of something Big. The days of Great Big Fantastic Messages are over. We all want a piece of the action, but we can't all get the whole pie.

Not all messages from God need to come from angels. If we always need angels to tell us what to do, how many angels would need to appear? God has given us a magnificient mind capable of extraordinary things. We could certainly use that. We are quite capable of figuring out our own destiny. We don't need that much information.

I was just making a point there with angels and prophets. Could God's prophets not just masquerade as ordinary secular-minded people? Could they be covert operatives and agents? They may speak and behave in a secular manner, but they may actually be quite religious and spiritual on the inside. It's not the religion you see that matters. It's the religion you can't see that counts. When they speak, and you listen carefully to what they say, they may actually turn out to be quite spiritual, even though they don't speak with heavily religious language.

The Jesus of Christianity was one of those people, and yes, not the only one. There may have been people who came before, as well as after him. Soft power guys and girls going out into the world to do their soft-power thing. Christianity chose to remember that one guy, but we could well see him as just a paradigm for the others. We could hope that one guy (or girl) would be enough. Otherwise we'd have thousands of stories to tell.

That is the kind of person I believe to be a prophet, a person inspired by the Spirit. There are times for great signs and wonders but there are also sometimes for soft power and subtle poking and prodding. Can't appreciate the big if we can't appreciate the small. That is why we must have ears to listen.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Raksha

All of these restrictions arose to avoid the possibility of profaning God's name...just FYI.

--Linda

yes many things came about in opposition to what the bible actually said, the bible was very clear about what God wanted , but things were done in opposition to that purpose, making known Gods name is what the bible informs us about, but many throughout time have hidden that Name and tried to make up all sorts of things to push it into the back ground . even making rules up that the name should not be spoken . but no worries Jehovahs purpose always comes to be, regardless of what people try to do in opposition to God . making known his name is not profaning his name it is Glory to God . yes , great meaning is in that name HE CAUSES TO BECOME .According to the Hebrew root of the name, it appears to mean “He Causes To Become” (or, “Prove To Be”) with respect to himself. Thus God’s name has real significance to thoughtful persons. That name reveals him as being One who unfailingly fulfills what he promises and is perfectly in control of whatever situation may arise



That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.psalm 83;18


(Isaiah 42:8) “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.


All names have meanings, even though many may not be aware of them today. For example, the common English name David comes from a Hebrew word that means “Beloved.” The Creator’s name, Jehovah, also has a meaning. What is it? In the original Bible language Hebrew, the divine name is written in four letters, YHWH, and occurs nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew part of the Bible. The divine name is understood to mean “He Causes to Become.” It implies that Jehovah wisely causes himself to become whatever he needs to be in order to accomplish his purposes. He is Creator, Judge, Savior, Sustainer of Life, and therefore he can fulfill his promises. What is more, in Hebrew the name Jehovah is in a form that denotes an action in the process of being accomplished. Yes, Jehovah is still causing himself to become the fulfiller of his purposes. He is a living God!



if you think that i am self righteous by making known Gods name ,so be it. . things are not always as people see them. in fact it is quite the opposite.