What is G-d?

[robrecht]

A three letter word - G-O-D.

Have you ever looked into the apophatic potential of the tetrgrammaton? Some see it as a reference to God's refusal to be named in Ex 3,14. In other words a 3rd person singular of an archaic form of the verb 'to be' (qal).

[headheart]

Have you ever looked into the apophatic potential of the tetrgrammaton? Some see it as a reference to God's refusal to be named in Ex 3,14. In other words a 3rd person singular of an archaic form of the verb 'to be' (qal).

Hi there robrecht,

According to John J. Parsons, 'The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh (rendered I AM THAT I AM in the KJV) derives from Qal imperfect first person form of the verb hayah : "I will be," and therefore indicates a connection between the Name YHVH and being itself' (to read more refer to 'The Names and Titles of God' - Shemot Ha-Elohim > Names Revealed in Tanakh > YHVH

Slightly off topic, I've been reading a book titled: Jewish Meditation : A Practical Guide by Aryeh Kaplan which was given a positive review by Daniel Goleman who wrote 'The Meditative Mind' and I thought the following quote might be something interesting to reflect upon while I'm busy considering TK's opening post:

'The Zoharic literature expresses this by declaring to God, "No thought can grasp You at all." Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady (1745-1813), one of the greatest Jewish mystics, notes that the Zohar uses the expression for "grasp" that is usually associated with a physical object. He explains, "Just as a hand cannot grasp thought, so the mind cannot grasp God." Our physical senses cannot grasp or detect thought and therefore experience it as nothing. The same is true of the way the mind experiences God.
Hence, the closest one can come to thinking about God is to depict nothingness and to realize that behind it is God. It is for this reason that nothingness meditation was seen as a means of drawing close to God. This is not to say that we cannot speak about God at all. As the major Jewish philosophers point out, statements we make about God are either "attributes of action," stating what God does, or "negative attributes," saying what God is not. We may say that God is good, kind, loving, and omnipotent. However, these are all descriptions of what God does and how He acts, but not what He is.'

From : Jewish Meditation : A Practical Guide by Aryeh Kaplan > Nothingness pg. 90

This reminds me of something which RonC wrote to UrbanMonk in Biblical Languages 301 > Made verses Begotten versus Created > post 17:

We are not addressing the temporal aspect of existence/reality from the Greek prospective. Aristotle suggests that the actual is already present in the timelessness of potentiality. In other words, the plant already exists in the seed... the Son is because the Father is. The Spirit is because the Father and Son are. There is no temporal aspect. If the Father is then the Son is. If the Son is then the Spirit is. If the Spirit is then the Father is… and on and on… If one exists all exist… simultaneously, spontaneously…

It's all very heady stuff and I think that RonC's final words were most insightful:

'I think that at some point it becomes a personal understanding. There is no way (this is my belief) that any of us can fully understand divine nature... so you might touch one aspect and I another... sort of like you can see the finger of the body of Christ and I can see the toe and another can see the hair... I know that is a bit silly, but it is the best I can do.' (post 24)

Shalom,
Erik.

============================================================End of my post.

Another interesting read from the JW Watchtower Forum is the following post "Is The Trinity Christian Theology Or Pagan Philosophy?" (circa. 2004)

[robrecht]

Hi there robrecht,

According to John J. Parsons, 'The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh (rendered I AM THAT I AM in the KJV) derives from Qal imperfect first person form of the verb hayah : "I will be," and therefore indicates a connection between the Name YHVH and being itself' (to read more refer to 'The Names and Titles of God' - Shemot Ha-Elohim > Names Revealed in Tanakh > YHVH

Yes, that's precisely what I was referring to in my post.

I also agree with the perspective of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady.

If I get a chance, I'll take a look at the other thread you pointed to.

[sylvius]

Yes, that's precisely what I was referring to in my post.

I also agree with the perspective of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady.

If I get a chance, I'll take a look at the other thread you pointed to.

I do think the "ehyeh asher ehyeh" doesn't indicate being as such, but being there for you, being there to set you free from all kinds of slavery.

Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

“Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)”: “I will be” with them in this predicament “what I will be” with them in their subjugation by other kingdoms. He [Moses] said before Him, “O Lord of the universe! Why should I mention to them another trouble? They have enough [problems] with this one.” He said to him, “You have spoken well. So shall you say, etc.” -[from Ber. 9b] (Not that Moses, God forbid, outsmarted God, but he did not understand what God meant, because originally, when God said, “I will be what I will be,” He told this to Moses alone, and He did not mean that he should tell it to Israel. That is the meaning of “You have spoken well,” for that was My original intention, that you should not tell such things to the children of Israel, only “So shall you say to the children of Israel,” ‘Ehyeh [I will be] has sent me.’” From tractate Berachoth this appears to be the correct interpretation. Give this matter your deliberation.) [Annotation to Rashi] [There appears to be no indication of this interpretation in tractate Berachoth.]

At mount Sinai he revealed himself also as the one "who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage".

[robrecht]

I do think the "ehyeh asher ehyeh" doesn't indicate being as such ...

Oh, yes, I quite agree. I only meant the verb 'to be', not some kind of philosophical concept of being.

[headheart]

http://www.chabad.org

I used to get a regular email from them but had no idea they have such great on-line resources.

Shalom,
Erik

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever looked into the apophatic potential of the tetrgrammaton? Some see it as a reference to God's refusal to be named in Ex 3,14. In other words a 3rd person singular of an archaic form of the verb 'to be' (qal).

Yes, so what? G-O-D remains a three letter word in English.

A little uncertain of your interpretation.

[robrecht]

Yes, so what? G-O-D remains a three letter word in English.

A little uncertain of your interpretation.

Of course I'm not disputing the number of letters in an English word. Was that the only point you were making? Perhaps just making a joke? I was merely pointing to the apophatic potential of the tetragrammaton, an ancient and yet still very relevant manner of thinking about God, who refuses to be named or manipulated by our limited human thought processes.

[headheart]

Of course I'm not disputing the number of letters in an English word. Was that the only point you were making? Perhaps just making a joke? I was merely pointing to the apophatic potential of the tetragrammaton, an ancient and yet still very relevant manner of thinking about God, who refuses to be named or manipulated by our limited human thought processes.

This is really an excellent point and definitely fuel for a few months serious contemplation.

G-d bless you one and all.
Erik.

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever looked into the apophatic potential of the tetrgrammaton? Some see it as a reference to God's refusal to be named in Ex 3,14. In other words a 3rd person singular of an archaic form of the verb 'to be' (qal).

I missed your use of 'apophatic' in the above. Yes the view of God from the Jewish perspective is apophatic in understanding the use of tetragrammaton. It is in a way descriptive and not a name of God.

[headheart]

I missed your use of 'apophatic' in the above. Yes the view of God from the Jewish perspective is apophatic in understanding the use of tetragrammaton. It is in a way descriptive and not a name of God.

Did you get the book link earlier on in the thread? I believe it's by the same author from which T.K adapted his opening post?

Peace,
Eric.

[shunyadragon]

Did you get the book link earlier on in the thread? I believe it's by the same author from which T.K adapted his opening post?

Peace,
Eric.

I got the book link, no problem.