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.

 

What were Jesus most important teachings?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
His MOST important teaching? His first of course! Well, his first miracle, anyway.


Am I out of wine, yet?




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena


I was actually asking you personally, because I greatly fear persecution, and you have a reputation for not persecuting or cursing people you disagree with, especially ignorant heathens like me.


Well thank you... i do hope other members see me in that light

Though i would HARDLY call you ignorant... not by any means

I am elated to see a you and another one of my friends (NuT) return to ATS!!


So you read the sayings of Jesus, and accepted the God of Jesus as your God. So you have no problem with the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."


That would depend on that context of that statement...

IF one believes that the God of Jesus is the god of the OT.... then that is a resounding "Hell No!"

yes he quoted it in Mark... but i don't believe he was speaking of that so called god


Do you see also how many people may have a truly conscientious problem and downright refuse to recite the Shema, given the context and implications involved?


Of course... but again we are talking about the "God" of all... Not some petty god that is shown in the OT scriptures


Does that render the conscientious objector evil, wicked, without hope and without God in the World?


Most certainly not... keep in mind those are Pauls words... Captain Pharisee!


That would be the bottom of bottomest questions. In my mind anyway, at least at the moment.


I haven't ever found a reason to take anything that Paul says seriously... as i've said previously... the only thing that is valid in his writing is his stance on love... and that only reinforces the FACT that the OT god wasn't God

Of course He likely didn't know that, being a student of the Law, a Pharisee... and a brilliant man who knew the OT better then anyone... which includes greek philosophy and many other things

Oh yes... Paul was very well educated, and even claimed in his own writing that he would do and say anything to gain converts to HIS new religion... which is exactly what he did

He became all things to all men... Only because he could with his intellect and education




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


Well thank you... i do hope other members see me in that light

For the most part, I think. I do remember a few years ago, when I would feel a sort of dread when I saw your avatar, like "Oh no! It's that Cheshire Cat guy. I better hide before he asks me a hard question!"


I am elated to see a you and another one of my friends (NuT) return to ATS!!

Case in point, I find it difficult to engage with NuT in an extended conversation, whereas you manage it. And, there are people who admire his way, though he/she is quite often off-topic.


That would depend on that context of that statement...

In Mark, Jesus gives the answer. In Luke the other man gives the answer. In both accounts, the question is in regards to what is in the Law (Moses). So the context is: it's the Law(Moses). The implication is belief in the God as one, and that the God is identified as related to Israel as their God. And in its context in Deuteronomy, there is a distinction made between that One and the gods of the other people.


Deut 6:13You shall fear Yahweh your God; and you shall serve him, and shall swear by his name. 14You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are around you; 15for Yahweh your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of Yahweh your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.

A few years ago, I was asking myself a question concerning "God fearing Gentiles" who Paul would proselytize, usually associated with a local synagogue in a Hellenized city. The term "god fearing" isn't exclusive to monotheism, it's an idiom meaning pious as opposed to impious toward the God or the god(desses). There was an area close to Galatia (Pontus?) that had its own robust monotheism. They did not allow Jewish synagogues. Let's face it, monotheisms have a serious conflict (incompatibility) between each other.

Most certainly not... keep in mind those are Pauls words...

Or his student's. That's why I used them.

But the thread isn't about Paul, and it wasn't even intended to be about the Shema.

As far as your conclusion that the God of Jesus is not the OT God, there seems to be an existential leap involved which I can't follow logically, leap of faith maybe. Once that leap is made, a personal interest (agenda) becomes involved.

I better stop. I'm in danger of pontificating. I make a very poor pontiff.

edit on 1-7-2016 by pthena because: spelling



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Jesus said the same as Plato and the Egyptian priests (also ISIS could have been a source for Jesus) (not so strange how reluctant Obama and others are to call the terrorist organisation ISIS)

- people have to love each other (to live righteous)

- the soul is immortal, she is released at death (actually Plato and the Bible are just saying the same);

- man must strive for a pure soul (in the Bible: to live a life without sin);

- there is a God above the other gods who is unreachable (the Bible names God as standing above the so called super people);

read www.evawaseerst.be...



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
"be excellent to each other"

and

"party on dudes"



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.


This is a quotation from the 'Recognitions Book 2: Chapter 42' by PseudoClement.

The author of Recognitions was obviously not the real Clement, the disciple of Peter, because the author uses Eusubius' "Praeparatio Evangelica" which was written about 313 AD and in 325, Eusubius also said, in 'Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii', this quote: "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.". So 'Recollections' had ony recently been published at the time.

So with a date at or about 313 AD to 325 AD, it could not have been the product of Pope Clement 1, the disciple of Peter. Which also means that it isn't likely to be information passed from Jesus, to Peter, to Clement.

edit on 1/7/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.


But I am a very conservative Christian believer, neither an unbeliever or a nation, and so that particular quote doesn't apply to me, does it?


You tell me. I should not be the one to decide that for you.

Nations is translated from the same word as Gentile in the Koine Greek language. Ethnos, if I am not mistaken.

Either way it would be goyim in Aramaic or Hebrew and Gentiles is not the greatest word for ethnos and nations is more accurate. Gentile is a negative word because it classifies one group as different than the other with both groups having individuals who will find their group superior than the other by birthright or belief.

So nations being less offensive and absolutely proper is what was used. Goyim can mean "the heard" or ''cattle" in Hebrew and gentile is always goyim in Hebrew which I actually find offensive to both sides.
'Goy' in Hebrew, which is what would be translated as 'ethnos' is was actually more like 'nation' or 'people' than 'gentile'.

'Goy' can also refer to the nation of Israel, too, as in the instance in Genesis 12:2 where Abraham is told by God that he will father a great nation ('goy' - Strongs reference 1471).

It is only relatively modern Yiddish usage that equates it exclusively to Gentiles. In no instance does it mean "the herd" or "cattle".


en.m.wikipedia.org...

I am surprised that you didn't know that. 25 years of study should have brought that to your attention at some point. That you have not looked into the meaning of and origins of a word so common.

Usually that is a sign that you are not much of a seeker of knowledge and just accept things without investigation.

And there is the fact that you live in a nation, most people do. Surely you couldn't have thought that nations was meant to mean sovereign states of government.

But, you did. I find it a little comical that you tried to be clever and accomplished the opposite.

You really do think that being a very conservative Christian is something that makes you better than people and immune to the universal law of don't be a snob and a know it all because you end up being the only one who doesn't realize it?

The wise know that they are wise and don't flaunt it.

Those who flaunt it aren't wise at all and only the less wise than they don't see it.

edit on 1/7/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
"Those who have found themselves , of them the world is not worthy."

***

His disciples said, "when will the Kingdom come?"

"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Fathers Kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it."



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Be nice to prostitutes.



That's hilarious! So many where I live. Be nice to them but don't trust them because today they have drug addict prostitutes.

Mary Magdalene was far from a prostitute though if that is the myth you are referring to.

That was a lie told by women hating priests. The only thing it says that comes close is Christ cast out 7 demons from her. But I have thought about it and it is more likely he saved her from 7 attackers who were probably trying to defile her.

It could mean other things too. 7 is always a good sign something profound is being taught or even just something not obvious.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
For me it was his new commandment. To love others like he(Jesus) loved!

But in reality all his teachings are great and beneficial for others and the person.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.


But I am a very conservative Christian believer, neither an unbeliever or a nation, and so that particular quote doesn't apply to me, does it?


You tell me. I should not be the one to decide that for you.

Nations is translated from the same word as Gentile in the Koine Greek language. Ethnos, if I am not mistaken.

Either way it would be goyim in Aramaic or Hebrew and Gentiles is not the greatest word for ethnos and nations is more accurate. Gentile is a negative word because it classifies one group as different than the other with both groups having individuals who will find their group superior than the other by birthright or belief.

So nations being less offensive and absolutely proper is what was used. Goyim can mean "the heard" or ''cattle" in Hebrew and gentile is always goyim in Hebrew which I actually find offensive to both sides.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I am surprised that you didn't know that. 25 years of study should have brought that to your attention at some point. That you have not looked into the meaning of and origins of a word so common.

Usually that is a sign that you are not much of a seeker of knowledge and just accept things without investigation.

And there is the fact that you live in a nation, most people do. Surely you couldn't have thought that nations was meant to mean sovereign states of government.

But, you did. I find it a little comical that you tried to be clever and accomplished the opposite.

You really do think that being a very conservative Christian is something that makes you better than people and immune to the universal law of don't be a snob and a know it all because you end up being the only one who doesn't realize it?

The wise know that they are wise and don't flaunt it.

Those who flaunt it aren't wise at all and only the less wise than they don't see it.


I too find it hilarious that people accept the term Gentile as a distinction. ''Not Jewish" is saying that Jewish is special in some way and everyone else is a separate kind of person.

It is either insulting to non-Jews that Jews are superior and God's chosen people or a reason to dislike a particular people. It is definitely a corrupt word and not a translation of ethnos.

Nations is the correct translation and there is no such thing as a Gentile in reality. Not being Jew doesn't warrant a special word applicable to "the rest" of humanity.

"... make disciples of all nations, Baptising in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
edit on 21-7-2016 by ZoeEleutheria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.


This is a quotation from the 'Recognitions Book 2: Chapter 42' by PseudoClement.

The author of Recognitions was obviously not the real Clement, the disciple of Peter, because the author uses Eusubius' "Praeparatio Evangelica" which was written about 313 AD and in 325, Eusubius also said, in 'Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii', this quote: "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.". So 'Recollections' had ony recently been published at the time.

So with a date at or about 313 AD to 325 AD, it could not have been the product of Pope Clement 1, the disciple of Peter. Which also means that it isn't likely to be information passed from Jesus, to Peter, to Clement.


You can apply whatever logic you are using to the Bible itself. The Bible just has more "authority" because it's the Bible.

Think of what type of people created the Bible and the probability of tampering between supposed date of authorship and final versions decided as canonical's date.

It's just given preferential treatment but Apocryphal works are as legit as Canonical they just come from the Jewish Christians who had little say in terms of Canon.

And Clementine doesn't mean"written by Clement", it is a series of sacred scripture from a sect of Christians no longer in existence. Clement is just the main character and nobody thinks Clement wrote all but 1 maybe 2 epistles out of the whole series.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZoeEleutheria

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.


This is a quotation from the 'Recognitions Book 2: Chapter 42' by PseudoClement.

The author of Recognitions was obviously not the real Clement, the disciple of Peter, because the author uses Eusubius' "Praeparatio Evangelica" which was written about 313 AD and in 325, Eusubius also said, in 'Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii', this quote: "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.". So 'Recollections' had ony recently been published at the time.

So with a date at or about 313 AD to 325 AD, it could not have been the product of Pope Clement 1, the disciple of Peter. Which also means that it isn't likely to be information passed from Jesus, to Peter, to Clement.


You can apply whatever logic you are using to the Bible itself. The Bible just has more "authority" because it's the Bible.

Think of what type of people created the Bible and the probability of tampering between supposed date of authorship and final versions decided as canonical's date.

It's just given preferential treatment but Apocryphal works are as legit as Canonical they just come from the Jewish Christians who had little say in terms of Canon.

And Clementine doesn't mean"written by Clement", it is a series of sacred scripture from a sect of Christians no longer in existence. Clement is just the main character and nobody thinks Clement wrote all but 1 maybe 2 epistles out of the whole series.


The work identifies the writer as Pope Clement I (Titus Flavius Clemens), the cousin of Domitian, saying that he was a direct disciple of the Apostle Peter. The narrative is quite clear that it was supposed to be written by Clement himself and also includes Clement's life story and so it is clear who the proposed author is. Historically, however, the credentials of the document don't stack up.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't concern myself with who wrote what when, the teachings themselves are what matters.

The only letter that the majority scholars attribute to the real Clement of Rome is 1 Clement.

One thing I can see is you are not a fan of the Apocrypha.

Which makes you bias, and I have no reason to entertain any thoughts you have on said material and specifically the Clementine and pseudo-Clementine works.

I can guarantee you are no expert in the feild and your opinions don't matter to me at all.

I have read most of Homilies and Recognitions and it is fascinating and spiritually relevant. I doubt you have read anything besides what you Googled while trying to find information with intensions of providing a negative response.

If you had you would know how important it is in the debates of early Messianic groups. You would know that the questions of early Christians regarding the OT God, his seemingly psychotic character, are clarified and reconciled the Simon Magus/Peter debate. That it is useful and the explanations given are better than any Christian today could hope for.

So I can take nothing you say seriously because it doesn't take a genius to see you don't just dislike but have contempt for
a book about early 'Christianity.' A book.


So have a good day and you should probably try and educate yourself beyond what Google says, which is basically whatever you want it to because opinions and pseudo-facts are abundant while truth is concealed.
edit on 22-7-2016 by ZoeEleutheria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Further, the term Pseudepigrapha is used to describe certain books written by someone other than the named "author."

It's never used to describe the Pseudepigrapha in the Bible (most of it is) which proves the preferential treatment given to canon.

And you are way off if you think that Clement is said to be the author of pseudo-Clementine scripture by anyone today.

If you want to get into Pseudepigrapha you are going to open a can of worms because I highly doubt that any of the named authors of Biblical books are the real authors.

Moses was once thought to have authored the Torah but this is an untenable position to take since Moses never existed and couldn't have written anything.

Only fanatics with no care for truth pretend otherwise. Every good Jew knows the Tanakh is not history for the most part and the mythology, the story itself, is a cloak.

If you actually know anything about the Clementine writings besides what you learned while searching for the source of Wombacracy's quote... never mind actually.

We both know you don't. You are likely what I like to call a "Google scholar." © You can learn what takes the average person years...in a half hour (so you wish).

My advice is stick to what you DO know and HAVE studied, then you won't be trying to pass off minutes of 'research' as fact and people like me won't be able to notice your not knowledgeable about the topic.

We call that "fronting" where I am from.
edit on 22-7-2016 by ZoeEleutheria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Hi.
He re established already known teachings. Sometimes He gets accredited for these teachings. But in actuality the teaching pre existed His arrival. He reinforced the message of forgiveness to extend to our enemies. I would say he re affirmed and reminded people to the Truth which is Eternal, as people had lost there understanding.
You see you cannot add anything new to what is Eternal Truth.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZoeEleutheria
a reply to: chr0naut

Further, the term Pseudepigrapha is used to describe certain books written by someone other than the named "author."

It's never used to describe the Pseudepigrapha in the Bible (most of it is) which proves the preferential treatment given to canon.

And you are way off if you think that Clement is said to be the author of pseudo-Clementine scripture by anyone today.

If you want to get into Pseudepigrapha you are going to open a can of worms because I highly doubt that any of the named authors of Biblical books are the real authors.

Moses was once thought to have authored the Torah but this is an untenable position to take since Moses never existed and couldn't have written anything.

Only fanatics with no care for truth pretend otherwise. Every good Jew knows the Tanakh is not history for the most part and the mythology, the story itself, is a cloak.

If you actually know anything about the Clementine writings besides what you learned while searching for the source of Wombacracy's quote... never mind actually.

We both know you don't. You are likely what I like to call a "Google scholar." © You can learn what takes the average person years...in a half hour (so you wish).

My advice is stick to what you DO know and HAVE studied, then you won't be trying to pass off minutes of 'research' as fact and people like me won't be able to notice your not knowledgeable about the topic.

We call that "fronting" where I am from.


Well, it look like you are banned again, Gnosisfaith. Should I bother replying?

You have, several times, accused me of only having my knowledge of these matters via Google search.

As I have said before, I do use Google to verify my facts (because my memory might be good, but my 'forgetory' is at a near-genius level).


I also have an extensive library of real books on the topic and 30+ years of interest in religious topics, specialising in the Christian faith and history.

I also recall that a while ago, you were willing to argue with me about the Zend Avesta and then a while later you admitted that were awaiting the delivery of your first copy. I would expect that someone studying the texts from dates 'pre-internet' would at least have several of those texts.

But this is beside the point. A religious text that is exposed as fraudulent, is a fraud. One would be wise to not place too much credence in such a fraud.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena


I better stop. I'm in danger of pontificating. I make a very poor pontiff.


you're doin pretty good


Pardon the late reply...


For the most part, I think. I do remember a few years ago, when I would feel a sort of dread when I saw your avatar, like "Oh no! It's that Cheshire Cat guy. I better hide before he asks me a hard question!"


I seem to have that problem in real life too...


In Mark, Jesus gives the answer. In Luke the other man gives the answer. In both accounts, the question is in regards to what is in the Law (Moses). So the context is: it's the Law(Moses).


Except IF not one Jot or tittle shall be removed so to speak...

and HE kinda crossed that line on a few occasions


The implication is belief in the God as one, and that the God is identified as related to Israel as their God. And in its context in Deuteronomy, there is a distinction made between that One and the gods of the other people.


Why would anyone expect any less? Its their god

ya?


A few years ago, I was asking myself a question concerning "God fearing Gentiles" who Paul would proselytize, usually associated with a local synagogue in a Hellenized city. The term "god fearing" isn't exclusive to monotheism, it's an idiom meaning pious as opposed to impious toward the God or the god(desses). There was an area close to Galatia (Pontus?) that had its own robust monotheism. They did not allow Jewish synagogues. Let's face it, monotheisms have a serious conflict (incompatibility) between each other.



Absolutely...


As far as your conclusion that the God of Jesus is not the OT God, there seems to be an existential leap involved which I can't follow logically, leap of faith maybe.


Seems to me HE did say, You search the scriptures believing that they hold "life"... He didn't really confirm that... HE only said they testify of me...

Its not a leap... as i've said many times, the two "Gods" are incompatible...

One is love, forgiveness and mercy, the other is Jealousy and Wrath, though it preaches "love"... and knows little about the concept

Even from the beginning... Poor kids took a bite of a "forbidden apple"

is such an act unforgivable? Apparently to this day according to some people...


Once that leap is made, a personal interest (agenda) becomes involved.


Well, no...

in my case i don't care what anyone believes... Good on ya IF you believe in fairies or unicorns... trinitys


Whatever... I just like to talk about it really




posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Be nice to prostitutes.



I don't laugh much.... but that comment ....... that made me laugh & left a smile on my face. Thanks.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join