Posted by Orpheus on March 23, 1999 at 23:54:06 {MW1OnOEFrOtO6}:
In Reply to: Okay Big Mouth posted by Janey to J.H. on March 23, 1999 at 06:09:43:
Thanks for the interesting quote. I should like to mention that huwah still in todays Arabic means He. If you make a verb from that the letter y means he is (whi he is) in the sense ogf existential being.
But what for all the discussion ? Cardinal Ratzing, president of the Catholic Congregation of Faith writes convincingly in his "Introduction to Christendom", that the name was meant as a no-name. As well as man should make no image the hame was irrelevant, He was and is more than that and beyond conceipt, he lives in a unapproachable light. So his answer to Moses meant, what do you care, I AM ...
But man, instead of having carved idol, misused this and made a verbal idol, a name .. (compare : you shall have no rules, only conscience should decide .. and makes a new cataloge of rules and talmud-like casuistic prescriptions).
And God disappeared thorughout hiostory, did not show up in person any more such as was the case in times
of Adam, Noah etc., later angels spoke for him, then the angels disappeared, he spoke in dreams and visions until this ended too and finally his name was not used anymore, e.g. see Esther and other books ..
(see the fascinating book of
Richard E. Friedman, The disappearance of God, also The Hidden Face of God)
and then a man appeared and said who has seen me, has seen the father ..
Get the point ?? So what for this silly game of justifiying the "name" at the cost of suffering of millions and millions ?? We need another explanation / hermeneutics
regards
Orpheus