Renarin's name - what I'm hoping Brandon ISN'T doing

[Ixthos]

Just now, Aspiring Writer said:

I technically didn't. He's a public figure that you can do a lot of research on, so he is a good example when compared to someone named John Carton that you'd be lucky to find the Linkedin account of.

Fair enough - its just this topic already is about religion, and the last thing we want to do is add politics!

"Religion. and. politics. often. make. some. people. lose. all. perspective. ..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ur6d-D4zXE

 

 

Just now, Aspiring Writer said:

Okay, so we agree on that. So what exactly are you afraid Brandon will do and think he shouldn't, and why shouldn't he?

I'm worried that Brandon is going to use Renarin's name as a reference to the Name of God, so if Renarin takes up a shard - or takes up a shard with multiple other people - that it would then be said by another character "I see now, your name means you are completely self sufficient and eternal now - now that you are a shard you have become like one who was born unto himself." which would be VERY upsetting to me. The LORD's Name is sacred, and if you can grok the idea of sacred it should be clearer, but it is difficult to explain otherwise.

[Kingsdaughter613]

52 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

That is an interesting take - though are you saying the angel was in the bush the whole time doing nothing? The text seems to be clear that the angel was in the bush, and yet the LORD has in the bush speaking to Moshe - that is, only one person went into the bush, and that same person then spoke from the bush.

Another question then is what was the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day that lead the Israelites out of Egypt? Was it the LORD or an angel?

 

(Actually, here is a list of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_Lord) Either way you do agree it could be interpreted as saying the Angel of the LORD was the one who entered and who spoke, as it doesn't say the LORD entered the bush yet it does say the LORD spoke from the bush. i.e. what was the Angel doing there?

 

Depends - do you think there is a problem with authors inserting references to real people in their stories? I did elaborate later, but it is something that bothers me, much like how an author talking about real people can potentially be offensive.

Considering the names used are different... The angel and the speaker were not the same. Elohim spoke to Moshe. Malach Elohim (an angel of God) was in the Bush to get Moshe’s attention. But the angel never spoke. The angel was there to make the Bush ‘not burn’.

God is everywhere. His voice emanated from the Bush when He spoke directly to Moshe. Just read the psukim, which I quoted. It’s pretty clear. Angels are not referred to EVER as YHVH or Elohim - and the speaker is referred to by both names. A Malach is referred to as a Malach.

Did you even read the psukim?

So no, we don’t agree as the text disagrees with you. Yes, the angel just hung out. Or left. It’s not important either way, though I’m sure someone commented on it. God always speaks directly to Moshe.

And Wikipedia is not a source. Rashi is a source. Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Sifsei Chachamim, Shemos Rabbah are sources. Onkelus, Rabbeinu Yonasan, Ohr HaChaim, Abravanel, Rambam, Me’am Loez those are sources. Wikipedia is not.

You want to argue? Show me a Sefer, not a webpage. Cite me a reputed commentator. That’s how we argue Torah. (Hey, there’s a reason we Jews are so good at arguing. It’s literally a part of our religion. Do you have any idea how many commentaries we have? I have multiple bookshelves packed with Sefarim - and they get used!)

As it so happens however, Wikipedia agrees with me: 

• Exodus 3:2–4. The angel of the Lord appears to Moses in a flame in verse 2, and God speaks to Moses from the flame in verse 4.

YHVH does not translate to Lord, btw. It just doesn’t have a translation.

[Ixthos]

@Kingsdaughter613 Wikipedia has a list of examples where the Angel appears and yet the characters refer to having seen or interacted with the LORD. I am not using it as a source, but rather for the complete list. For example in Numbers it says an Angel was the one who led Israel out of Egypt, yet it also says the LORD did so. If you have made your mind up on this my goal isn't to convince you but rather to show the exist often conflates the two, thus the LORD remains on His Throne, yet when He appears on Earth the manifestation is called the Angel of the LORD. Thus the Angel of the LORD is the LORD, while the LORD remains eternally seated on His Throne.

(Also, I like argument and debate too :-P and I hope you are accepting my comments in the spirit of constructive debate, rather than attempted bullying)

 

I know it doesn't. Adonai, however, is used when reading those passages, and Adonai means LORD, which is why I capitolise it, to signify it as HaShem and so to preserve the Holiness of the Name.

 

[Edit] Another example: Genesis 22:11 has the Angel of the LORD call to Abraham and speaks as though it were the LORD.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Ixthos

[Aspiring Writer]

2 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Fair enough - its just this topic already is about religion, and the last thing we want to do is add politics!

"Religion. and. politics. often. make. some. people. lose. all. perspective. ..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ur6d-D4zXE

 

 

I'm worried that Brandon is going to use Renarin's name as a reference to the Name of God, so if Renarin takes up a shard - or takes up a shard with multiple other people - that it would then be said by another character "I see now, your name means you are completely self sufficient and eternal now - now that you are a shard you have become like one who was born unto himself." which would be VERY upsetting to me. The LORD's Name is sacred, and if you can grok the idea of sacred it should be clearer, but it is difficult to explain otherwise.

So you don't like him doing a reference that is indirect. If your god actually has and uses the title 'one who was born unto himself' or some other significance to your religion, then take what I say with a grain of salt. But referencing something indirectly should not immediately be considered offensive. It's a real-world comparison that he may have been inspired by and based on when writing the origin of his new God of the Cosmere. A lot of people take inspiration from concepts already established and built upon. And while I can see the name of God being sacred, the concept of God's origins less so. Otherwise, the concept of gods birthing other gods would be a sacred concept people can never use, or gods having multiple aspects or personalities. if that's how you believe a God is created, someone having that in their story would seem to more indicate agreement to this being the origin of God. As you said, the LORD's name is sacred, but if he isn't using the LORD's name, this should not be an issue.

[Kingsdaughter613]

7 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

@Kingsdaughter613 Wikipedia has a list of examples where the Angel appears and yet the characters refer to having seen or interacted with the LORD. I am not using it as a source, but rather for the complete list. For example in Numbers it says an Angel was the one who led Israel out of Egypt, yet it also says the LORD did so. If you have made your mind up on this my goal isn't to convince you but rather to show the exist often conflates the two, thus the LORD remains on His Throne, yet when He appears on Earth the manifestation is called the Angel of the LORD. Thus the Angel of the LORD is the LORD, while the LORD remains eternally seated on His Throne.

(Also, I like argument and debate too :-P and I hope you are accepting my comments in the spirit of constructive debate, rather than attempted bullying)

 

I know it doesn't. Adonai, however, is used when reading those passages, and Adonai means LORD, which is why I capitolise it, to signify it as HaShem and so to preserve the Holiness of the Name.

 

[Edit] Another example: Genesis 22:11 has the Angel of the LORD call to Abraham and speaks as though it were the LORD.

The terms used in Hebrew are different. Malach refers to a an angel. YHVH is never used to refer to anyone but God. Elohim is rarely used otherwise, the only exceptions being Elohim acherim (foreign gods) and Elohai HaElohim (God of the gods). It comes down to linguistics - so PLEASE stop using English. Cite in Hebrew. I can read it just fine, don’t worry.

And yes, I know of the contradiction. There were angels there, but God’s presence was also there directly protecting us. It’s complicated, but both statements are accurate. Does a King come without a retinue? At least according to some.

There are several commentators on the subject. Why don’t you cite them instead of stating there’s a contradiction without: a: citing both phrases with context and b: relevant commentaries on the subject.

And you may want to consider not directly challenging a rather important principle of Jewish faith if you don’t want people getting annoyed. Moshe always spoke directly to God. That’s why we say 

אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה 
שֶׁנְּ֒בוּאַת משֶׁה רַבֵּֽנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם הָיְ֒תָה אֲמִתִּית וְשֶׁהוּא הָיָה אָב לַנְּ֒בִיאִים לַקּוֹדְ֒מִים לְפָנָיו וְלַבָּאִים אַחֲרָיו:

every day. Moshe was unique among prophets.

You arguing that I should consider otherwise would be like me arguing that you should believe that Jesus was just a mamzer who pissed off his teacher and got kicked out of school. I’d doubt you’d be pleased if I did that, though I could actually cite sources.

And we are arguing a particular case, not others. Why bring in others? You want to prove a point - cite! Give me psukim, commentators, etc. Didn’t you learn this in grade school? My teachers were largely awful and they still taught me enough to find my way around Chumash Rashi. I’m sure you had better than a bunch of seminary girls, lol.

[Ixthos]

@Kingsdaughter613 Before we go further with this, and I would really like to though that will have to wait until tomorrow at least, could you please tell me which parts of Jewish theology I am contradicting? Remember, I am saying the Angel of the LORD (not "an", "the") is in fact the LORD - that Angel of the LORD means the manifestation of the LORD, not a mere angel but actually God Himself appearing and used to distinguish between God on His Throne and God when He appears. Called Angel because no other term could describe His appearance.

(Also, I am not trying to make you angry, and I apologise if I am, as I genuinely don't know what I am saying wrong here. I will try to respond more fully tomorrow - also, could you site some sources about Yeshua like that? I would like to see how they compare to the sources I know of which vindicate the Gospel accounts.)

 

(Also @Aspiring Writer I'd like to get back to you on that, but that will have to be tomorrow at the earliest. Good discussion so far though!)

[Kingsdaughter613]

13 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

@Kingsdaughter613 Before we go further with this, and I would really like to though that will have to wait until tomorrow at least, could you please tell me which parts of Jewish theology I am contradicting? Remember, I am saying the Angel of the LORD (not "an", "the") is in fact the LORD - that Angel of the LORD means the manifestation of the LORD, not a mere angel but actually God Himself appearing and used to distinguish between God on His Throne and God when He appears. Called Angel because no other term could describe His appearance.

(Also, I am not trying to make you angry, and I apologise if I am, as I genuinely don't know what I am saying wrong here. I will try to respond more fully tomorrow - also, could you site some sources about Yeshua like that? I would like to see how they compare to the sources I know of which vindicate the Gospel accounts.)

 

(Also @Aspiring Writer I'd like to get back to you on that, but that will have to be tomorrow at the earliest. Good discussion so far though!)

It’s usually the Talmud for stuff on Jesus. I’ll have to ask my husband for the exact places; it’s all over. (Censors meant they had to be careful.)

We believe that God always spoke to Moshe directly.

I’m not annoyed at you for arguing that, btw. I’m annoyed because you won’t cite the relevant psukim so I keep having to do the research.

The word angel means messenger. Which means it may refer to different things depending on context. Generally speaking, if it says Malach it means messenger or angel. Context is everything and I don’t like looking things up that much.

[Nathrangking]

5 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Sure. It could be interesting. There are a lot of differences (and loads of things people don’t know, like Moshe’s staff being sapphire.)

5 hours ago, Ixthos said:

Thank you for responding - I guess those are deep questions and would be tricky to answer. Let me think on the answers for a bit and I'll see if I can hopefully ask some more clarifying questions later (there seems to be a link between idea 1 and idea 2 with the cycles). Until then I hope you have a great day!

 

Great :-) let's wait to see if @Trutharchivist agrees and we can go from there. I will admit, I'd never heard that the staff was sapphire - I was under the impression that it was the same one he had when he encountered the burning bush, and was a simple shepherd's staff. (Also, didn't Aaron's staff bloom with almond blossoms? Was his staff made from a different material?)

Can't forget the fact that the staff was Adam's first passed down to yaakov until it arrived in Egypt. Yisro took the staff and planted it in his garden and it became a sword in the stone type of test to see who was worthy to draw it from the ground.

 

[Kingsdaughter613]

4 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

Can't forget the fact that the staff was Adam's first passed down to yaakov until it arrived in Egypt. Yisro took the staff and planted it in his garden and it became a sword in the stone type of test to see who was worthy to draw it from the ground.

 

Yup, thanks. I couldn’t remember how it got to Egypt for some reason, even though I should have. 

[AquaRegia]

7 hours ago, Pandora's shard said:

In Brandon's universe, God exists. And, we know that this god (Adonalsium) created this universe. Now, look where he is taking this universe. This god was broken into 16 pieces. 

How can you break a god into 16 pieces? Which human religion allows that to happen? Isn't that heretic in itself? Breaking god?

Broken parts were taken by human beings. So, human b came gods. Multiple god's. Isn't that heretic from a point of view of many religions of Earth which profess the existence of a single god?

I claim no authority over 1) anyone's ideas of gods or God, 2) what Brando Sando can or should write, or 3) what he really has in mind for "divinity" in his fiction.  But I will offer my perspective on this characterization.

I feel confident that Brandon does intend to draw an important distinction between "gods" - which include characters, Shards, and even Adonalsium - and "God".  Partly from the published text and partly from WoBs, I think it's pretty clear; Adonalsium was not "God", but a "god" - a "person" of some sort who ended up with more power than was safe.

I will also point out that The Beyond does unquestionably exist in Brandon's fiction as a place where "souls" go after they leave the Cosmere.  We've seen many characters go there, and none have ever returned; I expect none will ever return.  And I believe he has flat-out said that both The Beyond and the ultimate nature of a possible "God Beyond" will not be material for any published work.

I think he has very carefully, deliberately and concretely created a firewall between the Cosmere and conflict with real-world religion.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:59 AM, AquaRegia said:

I will also point out that The Beyond does unquestionably exist in Brandon's fiction as a place where "souls" go after they leave the Cosmere.  We've seen many characters go there, and none have ever returned; I expect none will ever return.

This is not quite correct, to my understanding, though I could be wrong. The Beyond does not definitely exist (although people are free to believe it does, and many characters in-world believe that it does, and it does not definitely not exist either). However, the aspects do separate, and when the Cognitive passes... something weird appears to happen. But this could be going to the Beyond, it could be sort of "dissolving" and the Investiture returning to the Spiritual Realm, it could be something else entirely.

But I'm not super on top of the WoBs on this subject, so feel free to correct me.

[AquaRegia]

14 minutes ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

This is not quite correct, to my understanding, though I could be wrong. The Beyond does not definitely exist (although people are free to believe it does, and many characters in-world believe that it does, and it does not definitely not exist either).

I think your description is indeed better than mine.  I sit corrected and I thank you.  Readers and characters are free to believe (and many do, including Shards) in the Beyond, God Beyond, or both... but none of us will be shown PROOF one way or another.