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.

 

Deuteronomy 32:8 Yahweh a Son of God (The Most High)

page: 25
13
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonbet
a reply to: ilstar
Don't take my word for it here is one link but all pretty much agree on the date.

Enoch


Right, the material texts found may be from 200 BC but

the original version was lost in antiquity


Hence we don't know when the teaching originated, but then it would be useless to conjecture when.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I have two questions to determine whether the poster is lying. My first question is whether the poster has a comprehensive grasp of Biblical content.


originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar
...the bible, which I have read cover to cover more than once and read every day of my life...


Q1: Since you seem to be such an expert, can you explain the essential message of the Bible? What is it really about?

My second question is whether the poster has actually read The Book of Enoch and not merely googled about its name.


originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar
...
I love the Book of Enoch ...


Q2: What do you love about The Book of Enoch?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar
The two posters you are addressing are the same person, but he has been banned under both names.
He will probably be ariving shortly to give you a brusque answer under his current name.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

You are talking about Enoch right? This is exactly what I was just saying, you believe whatever you want regardless of evidence. Which is your right. But it will never make the untrue true, like the Urantia book.

I just think you should consider humility just a little bit. Because you were saying originally Enoch was thousands of years old. But that link says that it WAS WRITTEN during the pre Messiah days of Prophetic and Messianic literature. The whole style of the Book is that of the later prophetic books and the very fact that it mentions a messiah figure means it's from the Hellenistic era.

I just don't get why you are so unwilling to accept facts yet believe in the Urantia book.

To each their own I guess.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngraMainyu
a reply to: ilstar
... It might be one of the reasons you are so angry, someone probably cast a spell in it and you picked it up while reading it.
...Melchizedek didn't teach anything in Bible, he is a brief mention. So there is no possible way you are following his teachings. He is dead. Jewish tradition is that Shem is Melchizedek, and he is definitely dead.

Enoch is not as old as you state and there was a time when Yahweh was seen as a Son of El. These aren't guesses or opinions, but documented historical facts.

It's actually been known to scholars for quite some time.


Welcome to the forums, friend of the many-faced poster!

Melchizedek is dead indeed. Especially since he lived around 2000BC. It's a pity that he is so briefly mentioned in the Bible. It's a good thing we can learn more about him from The Urantia Book. Would you rather enlighten me about Melchizedek's or Shem's teaching about El Elyon? You seem to know a lot about the Canaanite teaching but nothing about this one. Especially consider that it's an older one. He may be dead, but his teaching obviously isn't.

Also, are you one of those mouth-foaming Christian maniacs who think that electronic texts may have hexes on them? Yeah, I've read it electronically. Does it still make me cursed or whatever?

Oh, and we haven't gotten actual sources from the previous posters like you. Do you have a single source to back up your claims? And maybe you can answer on the two questions I've mentioned earlier? Thanks!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Isn't there a way to ban the IP-address? Or does he use an anonymizer?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar
I'm not an expert on these things. I suspect the Mods are doing whatever they can in that respect.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngraMainyu
a reply to: ilstar

You are talking about Enoch right? This is exactly what I was just saying, you believe whatever you want regardless of evidence. Which is your right. But it will never make the untrue true, like the Urantia book.

I just think you should consider humility just a little bit. Because you were saying originally Enoch was thousands of years old. But that link says that it WAS WRITTEN during the pre Messiah days of Prophetic and Messianic literature. The whole style of the Book is that of the later prophetic books and the very fact that it mentions a messiah figure means it's from the Hellenistic era.

I just don't get why you are so unwilling to accept facts yet believe in the Urantia book.

To each their own I guess.



I've stated, after having believed in an older date and after having found contrary evidence, that it is then meaningless to argue about the date of that book, since both sources seem acceptable even while contradictory. I cannot judge who is right, so I dropped the date-argument. At least I am flexible in my argumentation.

Concerning The Urantia Book I haven't gotten a single source against it. Have you read it? Do you know what it's about? You are fixated on belief against this book. This is quite problematic, isn't it?

I consider humility, sure. I don't call you names or judge you in an unsubstantiated way you tend to do. I also consider this passage from the Bible:

Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, or they may trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)


I have been throwing you many sourced pearls, but what do you do with them? Does anything I tell you even affect you in any way? Not that I can notice.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ilstar
Q2: What do you love about The Book of Enoch?


Let me give you an example of how to answer at least on this question, which is not as relevant to this thread as the first one. I love The Book of Enoch because it contains a detailed prophesy till the year 3075 AD. Even if you believe that it was written and even originated in 200 BC, the fact that it accurately predicts the arrival of Jesus, then the formation of his Church, then the Reformation movement, and then the Great Tribulation of our era, The Book of Enoch should garner some of your trust and respect for its word. Thus, the unqualified tincturing of this book with Zoroastrianism's unexplained concept of "Boundless Time" is indeed a poor jest on your part.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar
I suggest, if you REALLY want to learn the Bible, the only Bible that will tell you all this is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. You will have to pay for it, about 70 dollars and it's rare but I have two because I had a beat up one and I wanted a mint condition one, and I bought it.

The Oxford annotated bible is the next best.


Here is something you may find baffling about your Bible-of-choice:

The text of the Old Testament is treated with great freedom. Frequently the traditional Masoretic text is departed from, in favor of readings from the ancient versions, and many conjectural emendations are also adopted rather arbitrarily. One academic reviewer (Gleason Archer) has described the Jerusalem Bible's emendations of the Hebrew text as "undisciplined and capricious," and concludes that "the Hebrew text is completely at the mercy of these translators, who can alter it to mean whatever they choose it to mean, without following the scientific procedures worked out by competent textual critics." (bible-researcher)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Abrahamic religions are its antithesis, quite an important distinction to make really


Not so, they control both sides. Gives you an illusion of "freedon"



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You can whitewash it any way you like, the words/texts speak for themselves



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




You can whitewash it any way you like, the words/texts speak for themselves



When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


This is Deuteronomy 32:8 in the King James version

It does not in any way support the OP, and neither does the original text.




Not so, they control both sides. Gives you an illusion of "freedon"


You're thinking of Perpsi vs Coca-cola or Dems vs Reps or Yanks vs Rebels
Two "sides" that share the same direction and goal.

This here brotherhood of the snake vs the biblical text is slightly more interesting:

Both sides are not pointing to the same direction at all, but polar opposite goals and directions on the same way, as the biblical text says obey the ten commandments and the brotherhood of the snake says do not.

Therefore a more apt comparison is war vs peace or lies vs truth.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   


the Lord guided them alone, and there was no alien deity with Him


Hm, so why do they feel the need to speak of aliens, or other gods I wonder??

It sounds like denial to me, and it sounds like the ancient alien theory.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


So you're taking the oral torah and the written torah and bringing some convoluted thinking to conclude that they are the same god. I dont mean to sound harsh but if you can see it why cant millions of Jews accept that Jesus is the the pre-existing triune god, or that he died and was risen? Or am I reading your conclusion wrong

No that is not the entire reason for my convoluted belief. In the Jesus era we had many divisions of Judaism just as we have today many divisions of Judaism.

Immediately after Jesus died and James founded the Nazarene movement they were automatically disowned by the rabbinic Judaism of Annas and Caiphus. James declared his doctrine as that of which Jesus taught with the exception that the blood sacrifice of creatures was no longer needed. James also being voted as the high priest (Nasi) was allowed by Roman law to use the Jerusalem temple for certain purposes such as literature and Torah.

The doctrine of this first Nazarene movement believed that Jesus preexisted as the image of the Father. The father did not create the Word but begat the Word as an entity with life in Himself. As the Word became Jesus, in the immaculate conception, His spirit was the same but His image changed substance. That is what I meant by the Father and the Begotten Son being the same and yet not being the same.

It entails a very lengthy discussion but that is basically the high point of the doctrine of James. I am not saying what the Roman Catholic Church believes or any other denomination believes. All I am saying is that the first Nazarene movement embraced this doctrine and it was their doctrine for well over three decades. As far as other Jews are concerned most did not accept this doctrine as most Jews of today do not accept this doctrine.

My small group of Christian Jews believe John 1:1-5 with the same liturgy as James taught.
John 1:1-5
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) He was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
(4) In Him was life, and the life was the light of men;
(5)and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

Jesus the man was not the Father (EL) but the Word who became Jesus was the Creater (YHWH) and the begotten son of EL. In time the Son (YHWH) returns to EL and they become one again.

1Corinthians 15:28 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


So we are back to pluralities of gods? What of the Roman Pauline christianity as opposed to James of the New Testament. Or what about the Gnostics view that YHVH is the demiurge? The whole house of cards is certainly precarious.

This would depend upon the way you believe or think. The first Nazarene's of James were not polytheists even though their distant fathers were polytheists at one time. Hebrew afterlife theology did evolve just as all theology does evolve or change in time. They did not believe that YHVH was a demiurge or that He is now a demiurge. YHVH Created this universe but is not the Most High EL and yet they are Father and Son without physicality. They are pure celestial substance and spirit of the same nature. As the entire creation disintegrates the extension of EL reverts back to Him in an unknown manner of pure spirit or energy. They once again become one.

Now as far as Roman Pauline Christianity is concerned, that is also word play by modernists of critical thinking. Saul/Paul entered the scene of the Nazarene sect about five years from the founding of the Nazarene movement. He was not taught in the Synagogue of James such as the other Apostles and disciples were teachers and instructors. Paul had no part in this operation whatsoever except that he was an approved evangelist by the entire congregation of James. His letters were not part of the Nazarene liturgy such as they became under the Roman Church.

We believe, without proof, that the letters of the Greek bible were Hebrew and or Aramaic autographs. The reason we believe this is that the entire liturgy of James was Hebrew and or Aramaic. Greek and Latin language and influence were absolutely forbidden and loathed by the Nazarene's and were contrary to the rabbinic Judaic organization of Annas and Caiphus who were appointed by Rome.

Nevertheless, Saul/Paul was endorsed by James as being one who was sent out to the Gentiles by Jesus and the congregation of James. So in effect Saul/Paul is not a Roman creation at all. He is or was part and parcel of the movement of the Nazarene's even though he had no work with the Jerusalem Synagogue. Now there are some that will condemn Saul/Paul and try to destroy his image as an Apostle (one who is sent out) by Jesus. I have yet to see any valid accusation confirming that Saul/Paul usurped that of Jesus and one day I believe that the autographs will be shown and prove my belief. Now till then, I shall hold my faith in that I believe the same as you will in what you believe, so that is why I said at the onset it is a matter of what one will believe.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

You must not recall the final time James summoned Saul and made him prove his worthiness with a 7 day purification ritual which Saul relents, because he knows he is guilty of the charges against him. Had he truly been a prophet he would not have bent to the will of men. He needed their endorsement at this time and was willing to pay lip service to James but as soon as he left he went back to teaching the false doctrine he was charged with.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

The king James is based off the Masoretic, which is corrupt. The Greek and the Dead Sea Scrolls read Sons of God, and Yahweh is one of the Sons of God(El). The king James is out of date and full of error, so you have a bad road ahead of you if you are going to argue KJV over a modern Catholic Bible that uses Desd Sea Scrolls and Greek with occasional reference, if necessary, to the Masoretic.

But you have shown the level of error and deceit displayed by bible editors even in the modern error.

Greek + Dead Sea Scrolls: Sons of God

Masoretic texts(14th century) sons of Israel

God is not a synonym for Israel

Yahweh is not El Elyon(Most High)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Ameretat


Text You must not recall the final time James summoned Saul and made him prove his worthiness with a 7 day purification ritual which Saul relents, because he knows he is guilty of the charges against him. Had he truly been a prophet he would not have bent to the will of men. He needed their endorsement at this time and was willing to pay lip service to James but as soon as he left he went back to teaching the false doctrine he was charged with.

Yes I do recall that. Saul/Paul was caught in a lie and it backfired on him as well as those who advised him to lie. It is suspected that even James had a part in that episode. I do not agree with your perspective that Saul/Paul was summoned by James but only that he went by his own accord to James and the seventy elders of the Nazarene's in a report and confirmation of his work. Not that he was summoned and ordered to prove his loyalty to Jesus doctrine. In fact the entire deceivement was propagated by the Nazarene congregation. At least that is what I understand. It was designed to protect Saul/Paul but did the opposite. Saul/Paul averted the entire scheme by presenting his Roman citizenship.

A prophet is not of his own understanding. A prophet of God is one who is told by God of a certain thing and in this case Saul/Paul was told (Acts 21:4) by disciples (in prophecy) not go to Jerusalem. Paul ignored them and their prophecy with the boldness that he was willing to perish. Then he took the advice of ones who were not of prophecy and got in trouble. But that is not to say that Saul/Paul had the prophecy from God himself as a prophet. That is not true. He was told by others and would not listen to the ones who had been told by God to stay away from that Jerusalem mess from the start. He created the entire situation and then had to lie to try to avert the situation.

Yes he sinned by disobedience just as Peter and every man alive sins. Does that detract from who Saul/Paul was? No it does not. Paul was not perfect and was full of mischief just as every living man has done the same.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It is good news that Yahweh is just the god of the Jews. He is a threatening demanding murdering psychopath who terrorized Israel for most of the Bible with the exception of a few good generations Yahweh is always demanding someone's death. Human sacrifice on a mass scale is disguised as some kind of holy war because Yahweh ordered it.

Any god that instructs his people to do genocide is an evil god.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join