God in the Bible

roosh

Just wondering what christians (and others) take on how God is referred to as "I am" in the Bible. I am not sure of how many of these references there are - if anyone knows and would like to post them, that would be great.

What is peoples interpretation of God being referred to as "I am", and do people see any comparison to the Hindu idea (from the Upanishads) that Atman is Brahman - the [true] self is God?

If there is only one God, is it possible that the depiction of God in all religions are simply cultural variations of the same God?

The Smurf

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarises this topic here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p1.htm#211

There is an informative article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

To answer your question, we may turn to the teaching contained within the document of the Second Vatican Council entitled 'Lumen gentium':

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

The Muslims obviously have a very deprived and distorted view of God. They, along with the Jews, deny the Holy Trinity, so they are unable to worship God in Spirit and Truth. More reading on that here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207bt.asp

This is from the Catechism:
___

"I Am who I Am"

Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."10
206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - 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.11

207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you").12 God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

208 Faced with God's fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God's holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."17

209 Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title "LORD" (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: "Jesus is LORD."

roosh

Cheers for the links.

It seems that the "name of God" is replete with references to "I am", which, when undsertood in the context of the spiritual practices, Moses et al. would likely have engaged in, can be quite revealing.

Chatechism of the Catholic Church - 213"The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS", would sugges that if God alone IS, and if we ARE, then we must therefore be part of God.

Spiritual practice, as opposed to religious practice, has, as it's core tenet, the idea that how we view ourselves is fundamentally incorrect - the original "sin" or the original "missing the mark". Indeed spiritual practice is concerned with understanding our true nature more correctly, and the practices Jesus engaged in, such as meditation, prayer and fasting, would have been similar to the practices of many Indian Yogis (in their search for God/Brahman).

If we take this into consideration, together with the idea that "God alone IS", as well as the fact that "we" are, could there be a case made that our true nature - not our perceived human nature - is what God actually is. That everything in existence, is the manifestation of God, but that our own mispercetpion of ourselves is what keeps us from experiencing God?

The fact that God is "I am", is inextricably linked to the Upanishads "atman is Brahman", the true self is God.


This link although not any real official source, is an interesting read.

The Smurf

We are NOT part of God. God is God, and we are His creation.

God, in Jesus Christ, invites man to partake of His divinity. But even then, we are still His creation, although we may partake of His divinity.

You must be careful that you don't read your own errors into the Catholic Catechism.

Read this, it is about pantheism, a heresy condemned by the Church:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm

These Q&As might also be helpful:

Q. During one of the prayers said at Mass, the priest says to pray that we may "come to chare in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity." This sounds suspiciously like the New Age teaching that we are all God.
”
A:
The prayer you refer to is taken from the Eucharistic liturgy and is said by the priest as he pours water and wine into the chalice. It doesn’t mean the Church teaches we are or shall become God himself.

Sometimes Catholic theologians refer to the "divinization of man," but this is nothing like New Age teaching. When Scripture says that Christians are "partakers of the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4) it means we begin to share in God’s divine life of grace in this world. We become divinized when God dwells within us.

This sharing in the divine nature, though real, is a created participation in God’s life. As creatures we can never become the uncreated God.
Catholic Answers Staff

Q:“
I think that our suffering is created because of our failure to fully realize our own divinity. That is why I think Jesus came-to show us how to create an alternate reality by creating an inner reality of health and power.
”
A:
This is an impossible and bizarre way of misunderstanding the message of Christ. First of all, Christ never said anything about us "realizing our divinity." That is a bunch of New Age nonsense. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that we are not God. Second, not all suffering due to a person's sin. Just ask the crucified Christ who, though he is fully God (and fully realized it), hung upon the cross not for his sin, but for ours. Just ask the blind man of whom Jesus said neither he nor his parents sinned, yet he was born blind (Jn 9:3). Or just ask Paul, who begged three times to have the thorn in his flesh removed and was told by Christ, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor 12:9).

It places a crushing burden on the sick and suffering to say, "Just snap out of it. You're only hurting because you have no faith." Worse still, it places the soul of one who says such things in jeopardy, for we can easily find ourselves numbered among those to whom Christ says, "Woe to you! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers!" (Lk 11:46).

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/New%20Age

roosh

The Smurf wrote: »

We are NOT part of God. God is God, and we are His creation. God, in Jesus Christ, invites man to partake of His divinity. But even then, we are still His creation, although we may partake of His divinity.

Agreed, "we" are not part of God, God is indeed God. While "we" may be his creation, the question must be asked who/what are "we"? Are "we" as "we" perceive ourselves to be? What exactly do "we" perceive ourselves to be?

This is a fundamental spiritual question, one that the Buddhist missionaries in India, at the time of Jesus, would have been very familiar with. Also, if some accounts are to be believed, Jesus himself travelled to places like India, in the [lost years] before his ministry.

The issue is, to clarify, that when we say "we", that is based on a fundamental assumption about who/what we are. Based on the flawed perception of who/what we are, it can quite correctly be said, "We are NOT part of God. God is God, and we are His creation. God, in Jesus Christ, invites man to partake of His divinity. But even then, we are still His creation, although we may partake of His divinity."

There is however need to investigate the nature of this "we", before this can categorically be said.

The Smurf wrote: »

You must be careful that you don't read your own errors into the Catholic Catechism.

Read this, it is about pantheism, a heresy condemned by the Church:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm

These Q&As might also be helpful:


http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/New%20Age

cheers for the links, they are very interesting. They are however predicated on a fundamental assumption about who/what "we" are. The practice of mediation deals fundamentally with this question, and is indeed, the quintessential spiritual practice. It seems to be a practice which has disappeared, somewhat, from the mainstream, despite being a fundamental part of the catechism on Christian prayer.

The Smurf

mangaroosh wrote: »

Agreed, "we" are not part of God, God is indeed God. While "we" may be his creation, the question must be asked who/what are "we"? Are "we" as "we" perceive ourselves to be? What exactly do "we" perceive ourselves to be?

This is a fundamental spiritual question, one that the Buddhist missionaries in India, at the time of Jesus, would have been very familiar with. Also, if some accounts are to be believed, Jesus himself travelled to places like India, in the [lost years] before his ministry.

The issue is, to clarify, that when we say "we", that is based on a fundamental assumption about who/what we are. Based on the flawed perception of who/what we are, it can quite correctly be said, "We are NOT part of God. God is God, and we are His creation. God, in Jesus Christ, invites man to partake of His divinity. But even then, we are still His creation, although we may partake of His divinity."

There is however need to investigate the nature of this "we", before this can categorically be said.

cheers for the links, they are very interesting. They are however predicated on a fundamental assumption about who/what "we" are. The practice of mediation deals fundamentally with this question, and is indeed, the quintessential spiritual practice. It seems to be a practice which has disappeared, somewhat, from the mainstream, despite being a fundamental part of the catechism on Christian prayer.

I guess that is the reason why I'm a Catholic and you are not!?

There is a grave danger for Christians becoming contaminated with the New Age and other false religions and ideas which conflict with authentic Christian Faith. In order to understand and engage in authentic Christian prayer and genuine Christian meditation, may I suggest these links:

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/how-to-pray.html
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/christian-meditation.html

Slav

mangaroosh wrote: »

Agreed, "we" are not part of God, God is indeed God. While "we" may be his creation, the question must be asked who/what are "we"? Are "we" as "we" perceive ourselves to be? What exactly do "we" perceive ourselves to be

The essence of created and uncreated is always very different and incomparable in Christianity. For this reason you cannot compare being of creatures with being of uncreated. As Gregory Palama put it, if God is being then I am not, if I'm being then God is not; if God is then I'm not, if I am then God is not. So YHWH is not just a name but rather it's the formula of being that is beyond our "being" or the essence that is beyond our "essence".

As far as "we" is concerned, the question is studied by Christian anthropology but I don't see how it's relevant.

Also, if some accounts are to be believed, Jesus himself travelled to places like India

If some mythology to be believed you wanted to say? You normally call "accounts" something that has at least a faint credibility...

PDN

mangaroosh wrote: »

cheers for the links, they are very interesting. They are however predicated on a fundamental assumption about who/what "we" are.

Moderator's Note

Indeed they are - on a Christian fundamental assumption. I would point out that this is the Christianity Forum. If you wish to discuss stuff from a Buddhist asumption then there is a Buddhist Forum where you can do so to your heart's content.

roosh

PDN wrote: »

Moderator's Note

Indeed they are - on a Christian fundamental assumption. I would point out that this is the Christianity Forum. If you wish to discuss stuff from a Buddhist asumption then there is a Buddhist Forum where you can do so to your heart's content.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I am speaking as a open-minded member of the Roman Catholic Church, a believer in God and the teachings of Christ.

A discussion on the Christian God, the God of all, including other faiths, would remissly ignore any other perspectives, assuming that God would not wantonly discriminate against any of "his" creations, by restricting knowledge of "himself" on the basis of geographical, or temporal, location.

In particular, with regard to the topic of meditation, on which the catechism says,

2207 - There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters......

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Meditation
it would be extremely remiss not to discuss the "many and varied methods", nor those [many and varied] "spiritual masters".


The discussion, on my part at least, will not proceed on any assumptions, Christian or Buddhist, but will seek to explore any potential assumptions which might perhaps be erroneous, and contribute to a misunderstanding of the subject matter.


One such assumption might perhaps be, the fundamental christian assumption about who/what we are. I am not familiar with the nature or full-extent of this assumption, beyond that we are God's creations. The nature of the concept "God's creations" is what I would seek to explore.

roosh

The Smurf wrote: »

I guess that is the reason why I'm a Catholic and you are not!?

There is a grave danger for Christians becoming contaminated with the New Age and other false religions and ideas which conflict with authentic Christian Faith. In order to understand and engage in authentic Christian prayer and genuine Christian meditation, may I suggest these links:

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/how-to-pray.html
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/christian-meditation.html

I am indeed Catholic.

2207 - There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters.

Catechism

One such teacher, not sure if he is considered a master, would be Fr.Lawrence Freeman. Here is an interview with him, where he outlines the "Ma-Ra-Na-Ta" Christian mantra meditation

[FONT=TimesNewRomanPS, serif]In meditation we move from the mind to the heart. That means something very important for our faith and our knowledge of its truths. By leaving the thoughts, words and images of the mind to one side (for a while) we enter unselfconsciously,[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPS, serif]silently, into the real presence of Christ within our heart.

[/FONT]


One issue with regard to the link on Christian meditation above, is the clear and fundamental misunderstanding as to what "non-christian meditation" actually entails. It is not about "emptying the mind", it is about transforming the mind, in a manner not unsimilar to that described by Fr.Lawrence Freeman above. Indeed, non-christian mediation (in eastern traditions) is about cultivating a state of compassion, love, all the qualities that Christian teachings encourage us to display. It is fundamentally concerned with transforming the "Ego", as mentioned by Fr.Lawrence (in the interview), into compassion, love, equanimity, kindness, etc. It is about cultivating "Ego-lessness", or "self-lessness".


Far from being a threat to anyones Christain beliefs, eastern meditation practices actually re-inforce them, and help to physically cultivate the states, such as compassion, that Christ himself taught about, and indeed practiced.

roosh

Slav wrote: »

The essence of created and uncreated is always very different and incomparable in Christianity. For this reason you cannot compare being of creatures with being of uncreated. As Gregory Palama put it, if God is being then I am not, if I'm being then God is not; if God is then I'm not, if I am then God is not. So YHWH is not just a name but rather it's the formula of being that is beyond our "being" or the essence that is beyond our "essence".

As far as "we" is concerned, the question is studied by Christian anthropology but I don't see how it's relevant.

The nature of "we", or of "you" and "I", is very relevant to the idea that "we" are not in God. It is equally very relevant to the comments by Gregory Palama above. In particular, "if I'm being". Here the nature of the "I" is important. Indeed, the "I" is not in fact being, the "I" is simply thought.

Slav wrote: »

If some mythology to be believed you wanted to say? You normally call "accounts" something that has at least a faint credibility...

I would have said being cited in a Biography Channel documentary would confer "at least a faint credibility" on the claim.

There is no need to assume, however, as the qualities displayed by Jesus, and promoted by him, are those that arise out of mediation naturally.

Slav

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, the "I" is not in fact being, the "I" is simply thought.

Christianity knew many heresies but not this one. Perhaps because it just would not make any sense for Christians.

Creation is real and it does exist although its existence is metaphysically different from the existence of uncreated God. That's what Christianity affirms and that's what Palama was referring to. It would be a mistake to read some oriental spiritual beliefs into it.

I would have said being cited in a Biography Channel documentary would confer "at least a faint credibility" on the claim.

No, it would not. A study that at least employs historical method would confer it, but a mere fact of airing it on TV fortunately would not.

There is no need to assume, however, as the qualities displayed by Jesus, and promoted by him, are those that arise out of mediation naturally.

I wonder what are they?..

roosh

Slav wrote: »

Christianity knew many heresies but not this one. Perhaps because it just would not make any sense for Christians.

Creation is real and it does exist although its existence is metaphysically different from the existence of uncreated God. That's what Christianity affirms and that's what Palama was referring to. It would be a mistake to read some oriental spiritual beliefs into it.

Was it Christianity or the Roman Empire and the hijacked church which knew these heresies, or are the two being mistaken for being one and the same?

The issue, however is, that it does (and did) make sense to some Christians,

The passing life of the senses doesn't lead to knowledge of what our Self is. When we clearly see what our Self is, then we shall truly know our Lord God in great joy.

-Julian of Norwich


Of coures, it is not creation which is being questioned, nor the uncreated God, and there are no oriential spiritual beliefs being read into what Palama said, rather what is being questioned is the nature of the "I" that is separate from God. It is important because "when we clearly see what our Self is, then we shall truly know our Lord God in great joy."

On the issue that the creation exists, then surely by that token "we" must exist, unless God created something which did not exist?

If then, "God alone IS", and we are because God has created us, then we must therefore be part of God. Unless of course "God alone IS", is not necessarily correct.

Again, answering the question about the nature of who/what we are, is unavoidable in this question.

Slav wrote: »

No, it would not. A study that at least employs historical method would confer it, but a mere fact of airing it on TV fortunately would not.

"faint credibility" is bestowed on anything that appears on the Biology channel, regardless of how faint.

Slav wrote: »

I wonder what are they?..

jf2k

Maybe "I am" refers to God dictating what happened in the beginning? Surely he made some account of what He did?

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Locking thread as it's over 5 years old.

If posters wish to discuss the topic, feel free to start a new thread.