Continuing Revelation

[LoAmmi]

The words barukh and berakhah are both derived from the Hebrew root Beit-Reish-Kaf, meaning "knee," and refer to the practice of showing respect by bending the knee and bowing.

This confusion stems largely from difficulties in the translation. The Hebrew word "barukh" is not a verb describing what we do to G-d; it is an adjective describing G-d as the source of all blessings. When we recite a berakhah, we are not blessing G-d; we are expressing wonder at how blessed G-d is.

I mean no insult, but I don't believe you to be more of an expert in Hebrew than our rabbis.

I've never heard a Jew say "holiness to the Lord, so I can't tell you what it means.

We don't believe WE can BLESS Him but that He BLESSES US. We don't have that kind of power as He is way too far above us for us to be able to bless Him.

I always assumed when you pray in someone's name, you are asking based upon that person's relationship with G-d. Such as if someone does an act "in the name of the King", they are doing the act but it is the power of the King that is behind it ultimately. So, praying in Jesus's name to a Christian would be praying to what they call the Father though the power of the Son.

We pray directly to G-d. Not in His name, as that wouldn't make sense.

 

[LoAmmi]

But, just as in the case of the plural "Elohim" supposedly meaning that God is a singlular, this Jewfaq explanation about barukh seems to turn the word on its head.

As soon as you have an answer to why the verbs used in conjunction with it are singular as well as plural, you're free to tell me it's turning it on its head. The Jewish understanding remains that it is, essentially, a unique word when used for HaShem. In other places, when it is used for judges and the like, it is obviously plural and uses the plural verbs.

 

[jackcv]

pawnraider said: ↑
Actually, they don't. They [Muslims] consider Him a prophet and not a or the Messiah. If they believe that He is the Messiah then what need is there for any more prophets?

Attached is a Christmas Carol that my friend and I wrote almost verbatim from the Quran several years ago.

 

[jackcv]

The words barukh and berakhah are both derived from the Hebrew root Beit-Reish-Kaf, meaning "knee," and refer to the practice of showing respect by bending the knee and bowing.

This confusion stems largely from difficulties in the translation. The Hebrew word "barukh" is not a verb describing what we do to G-d; it is an adjective describing G-d as the source of all blessings. When we recite a berakhah, we are not blessing G-d; we are expressing wonder at how blessed G-d is.

I mean no insult, but I don't believe you to be more of an expert in Hebrew than our rabbis.

I've never heard a Jew say "holiness to the Lord, so I can't tell you what it means.

We don't believe WE can BLESS Him but that He BLESSES US. We don't have that kind of power as He is way too far above us for us to be able to bless Him.

I always assumed when you pray in someone's name, you are asking based upon that person's relationship with G-d. Such as if someone does an act "in the name of the King", they are doing the act but it is the power of the King that is behind it ultimately. So, praying in Jesus's name to a Christian would be praying to what they call the Father though the power of the Son.

We pray directly to G-d. Not in His name, as that wouldn't make sense.

I appreciate your thoughtful, careful responses, LoAmmi. This one is typical. If you say this is what the more scripture-oriented Jews feel about prayer and blessings, I accept that. I am certainly not a Hebrew scholar.

You might check your Torah for the phrase Holiness to the Lord. It was pretty important to ancient Israel. The Hebrew is particularly enlightening, particularly when correlated with Lev 11:44.

Not surprisingly, yours is the first real considered response to the question about in the name of.

 

[jackcv]

As soon as you have an answer to why the verbs used in conjunction with it are singular as well as plural, you're free to tell me it's turning it on its head. The Jewish understanding remains that it is, essentially, a unique word when used for HaShem. In other places, when it is used for judges and the like, it is obviously plural and uses the plural verbs.

I answered that at some length in our conversation, I think. Since you ask, I'll quote it here when I have some time. Hopefully later today.

 

[LoAmmi]

I appreciate your thoughtful, careful responses, LoAmmi. This one is typical. If you say this is what the more scripture-oriented Jews feel about prayer and blessings, I accept that. I am certainly not a Hebrew scholar.

You might check your Torah for the phrase Holiness to the Lord. It was pretty important to ancient Israel. The Hebrew is particularly enlightening, particularly when correlated with Lev 11:44.

Not surprisingly, yours is the first real considered response to the question about in the name of.

The closest I can find is part of the tabernacle having Holy to the Lord engraved on them, which I would take to mean that those parts were holy. Just like Jews are to be a holy nation.

 

[LoAmmi]

I answered that at some length in our conversation, I think. Since you ask, I'll quote it here when I have some time. Hopefully later today.

The problem is you cannot get into the specifics of words to prove a point if you are going to ignore the other words that surround them. Claiming that because a word is plural it must refer to a plural gets muddied when the grammar surrounding it is singular. Something is off there and we're to either assume it is a mistake or the text is trying to tell us something. When I take that and combine it with the multitude of statements in the Torah and Prophets that He is one and there is none other beside Him, the idea that the plural word is trying to show more than one falls apart unless we agree the text is not internally consistent.

 

[smaneck]

Actually, they don't. They consider Him a prophet and not a or the Messiah. If they believe that He is the Messiah then what need is there for any more prophets?

He is called the Messiah numerous times in the Qur'an. The problem is that Christians don't know what the word Messiah means. It certainly doesn't mean there will be no more Prophets.

 

[jackcv]

We don't believe WE can BLESS Him but that He BLESSES US. We don't have that kind of power as He is way too far above us for us to be able to bless Him.

In Dueteronomy, Chronicles and Psalms, Israel is repeatedly commanded to bless His holy name, and in at least one case to "bless the Lord." http://biblehub.net/searchmlt.php?q=bless+his+name

When did HaShem retract that commandment? Of course, He has the right to do so, bless Him forever.

 

[smaneck]

What I said in that post was told to me by a Baha'i representative (not just an ordinary adherent)

I'm not sure what you mean by a Baha'i 'representative'? We have no clergy in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[LoAmmi]

In Dueteronomy, Chronicles and Psalms, Israel is repeatedly commanded to bless His holy name, and in at least one case to "bless the Lord." http://biblehub.net/searchmlt.php?q=bless+his+name

When did HaShem retract that commandment? Of course, He has the right to do so, bless Him forever.

We're kind of back to the entire meaning of the word, aren't we? That we don't view is as us blessing Him. It wouldn't make any sense to do so since we cannot bless the source of all blessings. But if the wording there indicates that we are to recognize His status as that, which is how it has been interpreted, there's no problem.

To put it another way, we don't pat Him on the head and say good job, yeah? Even if we praise Him, it isn't from a position of power, as someone doing the blessing has a position of power.

The part in Deut you might be talking about actually is telling the priests to bless part of the tabernacle in His name.

I think we might be talking past each other.

 

[cloudyday2]

There is a list of those Manifestations that have been named as such by either Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha. It is certainly not secret and can be found on most Baha'i websites. We do not think that list is necessarily exhaustive. For instance, there may well have been Native American Manifestations. I strongly suspect Quetzalcoatl might have been one of them, but Baha'u'llah never mentioned him. However we do not accept anyone as a Manifestation who came after Baha'u'llah because Baha'u'llah insisted that there would not be any 'ere the passing of a thousand years.

What about Joseph Smith who founded Mormonism? It seems to me that he would qualify as a Manifestation, because he learned religious texts from an angel and reformed a major religion (just like Muhammad). On the other hand, Joseph Smith was roughly contemporary with Baha'u'llah, so this would seem to contradict the 1000 year interval between Manifestations. Probably neither founder was aware of the other, because their movements were so tiny at that time (they didn't know of each other right?). I believe Baha'i has the concept of Prophets, so maybe that is how Joseph Smith is classified in Baha'i?

You've got a wild imagination. I've never even met a Raelian.

I do have a wild imagination I haven't met a Raelian either, but it seems like a nice religion as they go. Apparently it is popular in Korea. I guess their founder was after Baha'u'llah, so Baha'i could not accept him as a Manifestation.

Not feeling particularly oppressed.

I guess it's like a dog on a leash. The dog is not bothered by the leash as long as it doesn't try to go a different direction. The dog gives up some of its freedom in return for a bowl of dog food and some tummy rubs. Is that oppression or a healthy social arrangement?

Apparently Baha'i emphasizes unity - much like the Catholic Church. The social networks of Baha'i are often other Baha'i. When a Baha'i expresses deviant thinking then his/her friends become cold. Eventually the freethinking Baha'i is excommunicated and shunned. I don't like that system one bit. Everybody is entitled to think what they want and say what they want IMO.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not sure what you mean by a Baha'i 'representative'? We have no clergy in the Baha'i Faith.

Well, there's your first problem!

 

[smaneck]

The words barukh and berakhah are both derived from the Hebrew root Beit-Reish-Kaf, meaning "knee," and refer to the practice of showing respect by bending the knee and bowing.

Really? Because what I always thought to be the Arabic cognate Baraka comes from a root meaning 'gift.' Someone who is very charismatic is said to have a lot of baraka. Saint shrines also have baraka. Our President was well-named.

 

[LoAmmi]

Really? Because what I always thought to be the Arabic cognate Baraka comes from a root meaning 'gift.' Someone who is very charismatic is said to have a lot of baraka. Saint shrines also have baraka. Our President was well-named.

There is some dispute. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02122.html

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure what you mean by a Baha'i 'representative'? We have no clergy in the Baha'i Faith.

Spokesman.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm sure that's so. However, I'm less impressed by the Baha'i idea that to have a world of harmony, as they preach it, it will be necessary to force the rest of us to follow the Baha'i lead. Must be an idea that's been carried over from the Islamic past.

I have read that the Baha'i goal is to convert everybody in the world and establish a universal theocracy, but I have never read about using force. I'm surprised to hear something like that, but I don't know much about Baha'i. It would match Muslim thinking I suppose.

 

[smaneck]

What about Joseph Smith who founded Mormonism? It seems to me that he would qualify as a Manifestation, because he learned religious texts from an angel and reformed a major religion (just like Muhammad).

For Baha'is a Manifestation is not simply someone who receives a message from God, but who exhibits in their own Person everything we can understand about God humanly speaking. I don't think that can be said of Joseph Smith. Manifestations of God are perfect mirrors reflecting the names and attributes of God. That is why we don't think Christians are wrong when they say Jesus is God. We just think He is God in the sense that He manifests His attributes, not that He incarnates God Essence.

I guess it's like a dog on a leash. The dog is not bothered by the leash as long as it doesn't try to go a different direction. The dog gives up some of its freedom in return for a bowl of dog food and some tummy rubs.

The dog is not bothered by the leash because it means a walk with his favorite person.

Is that oppression or a healthy social arrangement?

You seem to think there is analogy between the two. Only in your imagination.

Apparently Baha'i emphasizes unity - much like the Catholic Church.

What the Baha'i Faith emphasizes is unity in diversity.

The social networks of Baha'i are often other Baha'i.

Is that supposed to be a meaningful statement? If you are insinuating that Baha'is isolate themselves from the outside world, you couldn't be more wrong!

When a Baha'i expresses deviant thinking then his/her friends become cold.

And you know this how?

Eventually the freethinking Baha'i is excommunicated and shunned.

And you know this how? The only people Baha'is shun are those making false claims to leadership. In other words they are trying to form separate sects with themselves as the leaders. It has nothing to do with being 'freethinking.'

I don't like that system one bit.

It is pretty obvious you know nothing about the system.

 

[smaneck]

Spokesman.

Again, I don't know what that means in a Baha'i context. Is it a Baha'i you invited to come to your church and explain the Faith? We have elected bodies within the Baha'i community, but it is the elected body which has authority, never the individuals serving on it.

 

[Albion]

Again, I don't know what that means in a Baha'i context. Is it a Baha'i you invited to come to your church and explain the Faith?

No. It was when I was a visitor to their temple.

https://www.bahai.us/bahai-temple