It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The bible is not

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I was jokingly referencing to your post here; [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com...]




Sticks and stones I like the effort you place in explaining yourself Oh wait, no just the name calling, sadly thats the baseline.


What's with the drama, you should probably take a chill pill, I never seriously used any ad hominems against you personally. If your offended by my criticism or views, dispute what I've said rationally without presuming anything about my character. Or disregard what I've said and move on.




You have a nice evening too, you need to control your anger, it will make your evening nicer


BTW none of what I wrote in my previous posts in this thread were written in anger, more pity than anything. I did have a nice evening though,thanks for mentioning






edit on 7-11-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Poor seede, are you still operating under the delusion that Jesus had a blood brother named James? I've come to the conclusion you are invincibly ignorant. No amount of proof would deter your aimless mental wanderings.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula


Previous Jewish Messianic Groups and Churches followed the law of Moses and their prophecy of a Messiah. Not Christ, not Jesus, Also there is no historical evidence of Jesus existence let alone of who was his brother.

That is where we disagree. The Messianic Jews of the first congregation voted Jame as their Nasi, John as the caretaker of the priests and Peter as the officer of the organization. They had nothing to do with the temple or national Judaism. The very first change that took place in this new structure was that of eliminating animal sacrifice. In all reality they were Essenes or patterned after the Essenes. The Messianic Jews did observe most all laws of Moses but not the punishments.

Let me explain that so you won't get me wrong. Let's take adultery for the example. Adultery was a sin in both covenants. Jesus confronted this with the woman who was charged with this sin. Even though Jesus told her to sin no more, He did not exact the same punishment as the civil law required. Why? Because the civil law had no grace or forgiveness from punishment. The law exacted civil punishment even though one repented from the sin. Jesus brought forgiveness of the sin as well as the punishment of the law for that sin but that sin still existed if one did not repent. If one died in that sin then that is the judgment after the soul has died. All of this does not take away from the law which states that adultery is still a sin.

This new Messianic group believed that animal sacrifice was no longer needed because Jesus was the new blood covenant. All covenants of the Hebrews were sanctified by blood which was regarded as the life. This differed from rabbinic Judaism in that the animal sacrifice would continue till the end simply because their Messiah was a mortal man or King.

The prophecy of Messiah of National Judaism or better known as Rabbinic Judaism was vastly different than that of Messianic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism believed that their Messiah would be a mortal man from the seed of David with special powers and that this man king would continue the very same practice that these who were under National Judaism were presently practicing. They would establish a world power and become the rulers of mankind. The man King would eventually die as any mortal and his seed would carry on in like manner. This would continue till the end of this world wherein the justified would enter the bundle of life as disembodied spirits. Also a general resurrection would be experienced where all who have lived would resurrect in a earthly body such as they had before death and then be judged as to their worth.

Now the Messianic people were taught a different doctrine. Their Messiah was the Begotten Son Of God who had a preexistence with God before His becoming the man Jesus. Upon His death He emptied Sheol of all the justified spirits and introduced them to the kingdom of heaven. From that point on all people who die and are justified enter the kingdom of heaven, receive a new name and a new celestial body. They exist in the New Jerusalem and eat and drink the fruit and water of life. Their Messiah eventually reverts back into the source of which He was shown which is the Spirit God. The kingdom of heaven (New Jerusalem) with all of the justified spirits will descend upon a new world which will be forever.

Basically that is the difference.

I agree that we are in theology now and not proofs.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian


Poor seede, are you still operating under the delusion that Jesus had a blood brother named James? I've come to the conclusion you are invincibly ignorant. No amount of proof would deter your aimless mental wanderings.

1611 KJV
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Did I say in my posts that Jesus had a blood brother or did you assume that I said that?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Well explained. I totally agree with you about the differences of various Messianic Jews and Orthodox ones, (and other forms of Judaism at that time).

But my point is that Messianic Jews weren't as organized and united, according to the evidence.
So lets move a bit from Theology to ''proofs'' just for the interesting discustion

There is no evidence of a first Messianic church in Jerusalem prior to the christian one much later, in contrary to the Acts claim.
The very first evidence of a church of Messianic Beliefs was found in Alexandria of Egypt.
Probably Philo of Alexandria was also involved to the Messianic ''church'' of the 1st century.
(many similarities with Paul)
Build underground for reasons of Egyptian mysticism and later used as a synagogue to the Messianic Jews,
originally dedicated to Serapis, full of Egyptian and Greek symbols, then to the Messiah and Christ.
Christianity was born there, combining existing Cananites mythologies, with the Persian Zoroastrianism influence in Judaism, which lead to the adaption of the Persian-Roman Mythraism, inspiring the Messianic Jews, with later Romans influences the Dionysus mysticism and other Greek and Egyptian pagan properties, thus creating Christianity.
Of course it wasn't done in one day it evolved as it was spread through the years.
That's why the very first Christians didn't exactly believe what today's Christians do.


The first Gospel was that of Paul, probably a Hellenized Jew wanted to give direction to the Jews inside the Empire
, or a Jewish Roman like Josephus, working for the Imperial cult.
Paul didn't talked about a real person called Jesus, Paul talked a about a spiritual entity, preexisting and probably identical with God. Was he a gnostic? maybe.
Paul talked about the brothers of Jesus, literally? no because he then says
that those who are baptized will also become sons of God, and such as brothers of Jesus.
He said only the apostles have witnessed Jesus, but how about the thousands of Jews that show his miracles?
It becomes obvious he doesn't talk about Jesus as an actual person, the way Mark does.

The literal story of the biography of an existing person named Jesus, born as a human among us, come 2 decades later with Mark,
But Paul doesn't refer to the first church or what Mark and Mathew and Peter is doing at that time at all, like they don't really exist for him.
His biography comes from Acts not from him.

And Mark insists to us that we must understand how to read the parables, like telling us that this whole story I am telling you is just a parable (a fictional story with a hidden message, based on the Gospel of Paul?)

What mark did was a pagan ''trend'' since 200bc creating fictional stories of Gods properties as actual humans that supposedly existed in the past.
Just like hidden messages in scriptures was also a trend among the sophisticated of that time.

The brilliant and the most interesting property of the Gospels for me is exactly that, they had 2 truths:
-the literal one for the masses
-and the hidden allegorical one for the sophisticated and educated people of that time who would easily dismiss a simplistic literal story made for slaves, fishermen and shepherds.

Much later we have the Gospels of Mathew, Luke which are just copies of Mark with some contradictions
and even later the Gospel of John which establishes the bases of the ideology of the new Religion.

Sorry for the long post... my point is there in no way the Church of Pentecost (if existed)
(Pentecost = Πεντηκοστή = Fiftieth (day after christ))
To have been teaching Christ as we know him today because that concept was created much later

If existed then it was about Messianic Judaism in a primitive form, which kept evolving,
it's Christian origin was attributed to it much later by leaders of Christianity.

edit on SatSat, 07 Nov 2015 20:43:07 -06001PMk000000Saturdaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Dr1Akula


Previous Jewish Messianic Groups and Churches followed the law of Moses and their prophecy of a Messiah. Not Christ, not Jesus, Also there is no historical evidence of Jesus existence let alone of who was his brother.

That is where we disagree. The Messianic Jews of the first congregation voted Jame as their Nasi, John as the caretaker of the priests and Peter as the officer of the organization. They had nothing to do with the temple or national Judaism. The very first change that took place in this new structure was that of eliminating animal sacrifice. In all reality they were Essenes or patterned after the Essenes. The Messianic Jews did observe most all laws of Moses but not the punishments.

Let me explain that so you won't get me wrong. Let's take adultery for the example. Adultery was a sin in both covenants. Jesus confronted this with the woman who was charged with this sin. Even though Jesus told her to sin no more, He did not exact the same punishment as the civil law required. Why? Because the civil law had no grace or forgiveness from punishment. The law exacted civil punishment even though one repented from the sin. Jesus brought forgiveness of the sin as well as the punishment of the law for that sin but that sin still existed if one did not repent. If one died in that sin then that is the judgment after the soul has died. All of this does not take away from the law which states that adultery is still a sin.

This new Messianic group believed that animal sacrifice was no longer needed because Jesus was the new blood covenant. All covenants of the Hebrews were sanctified by blood which was regarded as the life. This differed from rabbinic Judaism in that the animal sacrifice would continue till the end simply because their Messiah was a mortal man or King.

The prophecy of Messiah of National Judaism or better known as Rabbinic Judaism was vastly different than that of Messianic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism believed that their Messiah would be a mortal man from the seed of David with special powers and that this man king would continue the very same practice that these who were under National Judaism were presently practicing. They would establish a world power and become the rulers of mankind. The man King would eventually die as any mortal and his seed would carry on in like manner. This would continue till the end of this world wherein the justified would enter the bundle of life as disembodied spirits. Also a general resurrection would be experienced where all who have lived would resurrect in a earthly body such as they had before death and then be judged as to their worth.

Now the Messianic people were taught a different doctrine. Their Messiah was the Begotten Son Of God who had a preexistence with God before His becoming the man Jesus. Upon His death He emptied Sheol of all the justified spirits and introduced them to the kingdom of heaven. From that point on all people who die and are justified enter the kingdom of heaven, receive a new name and a new celestial body. They exist in the New Jerusalem and eat and drink the fruit and water of life. Their Messiah eventually reverts back into the source of which He was shown which is the Spirit God. The kingdom of heaven (New Jerusalem) with all of the justified spirits will descend upon a new world which will be forever.

Basically that is the difference.

I agree that we are in theology now and not proofs.


I read all of that, am pretty much in my cups, and I think you are smoking a boatload worth of drugs.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula


There is no evidence of a first Messianic church in Jerusalem prior to the christian one much later, in contrary to the Acts claim. The very first evidence of a church of Messianic Beliefs was found in Alexandria of Egypt.

We are not on the same page at all. With all due respect I must include the literature of Acts as genuine in this theological discussion. I understand that you and many other do not. Also my discussion is centered on the Hebrew accounts of the primitive Apostolic Nazarene congregation with the Yahusha (Jesus) as their Hamashiach. I do understand the roots of Christianity can be theorized back to the Persians but also can relate further back to the creation. At sometime all theologies were simply an idea or religion and all are related one with the other.

With that said my intent was to show the Hebrew Nazarene's first Messianic Synagogue is considered to be the upper room as described in the book of Acts (1:13) and James the just the first Bishop of this congregation. Whether or not you wish to call this Christianity is your prerogative but according to various sources out side of organized religions that is my understanding. Eusebius, Clement and Jerome all verify the authenticity of James being the first Bishop of the Jerusalem Church (Synagogue) and its distinction from the Temple and in doing so have established the theological fact (if that is a possibility) that James was the Nasi (High Priest) of this organization.

The Gospels were simply letters from one to others and not designed by the authors as literature to be studied and dissected into hundreds of conflicting theories. This and the fact that none of us have the original letters to study. If these letters were penned in Hebrew and Aramaic and then copied into the Greek language, as is believed by some, then word play is nothing but a game of chance. In lite of this I then read with the contextual thought as well as individual words and what I read is that there was an independent organization of people who called themselves Nazarene's and split from the rabbinic authority of that day. The leaders of this organization were two Apostles of Jesus and His brother. The rest is scattered tradition from many sources.

Yes, this movement did evolve into many other religions which we call denominations today but was spawned from the Roman Jackals who murdered these first Nazarene's and reinvented their concept of the Nazarene religion. Evidence? Yes we have much literary evidence. Proof? No, we have little physical proof.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe




I read all of that, am pretty much in my cups, and I think you are smoking a boatload worth of drugs.

Show us the way Bubba. Always willing to listen and learn.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Dr1Akula
Yes, this movement did evolve into many other religions which we call denominations today but was spawned from the Roman Jackals who murdered these first Nazarene's and reinvented their concept of the Nazarene religion. Evidence? Yes we have much literary evidence. Proof? No, we have little physical proof.


That is a very possible scenario... I am not dismissing possible incidents and situations,
I just go with what historical evidence we got till now.

I also don't Denny that there is a common ''hidden truth'' through symbolism and allegorical meanings
among all the religions that combine Christianity.
But it's origin predates Judaism, according to evidence of course,
although in theological terms they are somehow related.

edit on SunSun, 08 Nov 2015 19:58:10 -06001PMk000000Sundaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: BubbaJoe




I read all of that, am pretty much in my cups, and I think you are smoking a boatload worth of drugs.

Show us the way Bubba. Always willing to listen and learn.


I have nothing to teach no one, living my life, loving others, and going forward.







 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join