Conspired Plot To Have Jesus Murdered

a reply to: enterthestage

I'm pretty sure Judas made the deal to hand over Jesus for 30 pieces of silver before the last supper, Jesus just controlled the timing of His arrest. They didn't want to do it during the feast for fear of an uprising of the people, but Jesus forced them to play their cards. Judas sought out and conspired with Caiaphas and took the 30 pieces of silver before the eve of Passover. See Matthew chapter 26.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: enterthestage

I also have a problem with god did it. That makes god evil don't you think, de facto responsible for all the evil things people do to each other down here, because its all part of gods plan?

Well this is a complex topic but I also have a problem with God sacrificing his own Son and at this point it is a major component in Christian theology that he did it out of Love so our sins could be forgiven (I don't subscribe to this at all). But Isaiah says "I Yahweh, do all these things." meaning good and evil so if you are wondering if it's scriptural to assign evil to Yahweh, it is.

I personally don't think that Yahweh is God or Jesus Father. He never says Yahweh is his Father and I believe that the whole revelation of Christ was that HIS Father (not the Jews father who he calls devil, liar and murderer) is God and that (to me) makes the most sense.

Yahweh wanted Jesus dead, is the Evil One and was overthrown when he allowed a perfectly innocent man to be executed. This is why the Father, Son and Spirit are God now and not Yahweh the evil one.

Thats like saying good men are responsible for evil acts because they did nothing to stop it. So lets blame good people for the evil, too? People do evil things, out of greed, envy, anger, avarice, etc. Anger is not the devil, per se, its people who are angry and seeking revenge for something instead of forgiving.

I agree, but sometimes good men must do something to fight evil or they do incurr responsibility for doing nothing.

a reply to: enterthestage

SO you do subscribe to the trinity, yet not the god that this theology is associated with?

Interesting

a reply to: Akragon

Theology has little to do with what I believe.

And I don't believe that the God/Father of the Trinity is Yahweh.

The theology of the Trinity is actually Egyptian in origin and was taken from Egyptian Christianity. I don't believe that the "god associated with this theology" is who Christianity says.

I believe they are wrong.

a reply to: Akragon

That theology is not associated with that "god" of whom you speak. It is not even associated with the Bible.

The triple nature of God(s) is Egyptian in origin and also Hindu.

Christianity borrowed it, mangled it beyond recognition and doesn't understand it. I don't subscribe to theology period, I believe what my instincts tell me is true.

And sometimes I just like to ponder the mysteries of scripture. I don't know any more than anyone about what God is. I just read and read and read and think, think, think.

I will find out what I don't know when I die. Until then I just enjoy the mysteries of life.

a reply to: enterthestage

Well i would say it was taken from the greek version of it... Egyptian mythology isn't closely associated with Christianity....Judaism perhaps

whereas greek mythology seems to be abundant in Christianity

In any case Jesus knew nothing of a trinity

a reply to: Akragon

Ok, I will agree with that.

a reply to: enterthestage

I personally don't think that Yahweh is God or Jesus Father. He never says Yahweh is his Father and I believe that the whole revelation of Christ was that HIS Father (not the Jews father who he calls devil, liar and murderer) is God and that (to me) makes the most sense.

So do you think Jesus was confused or lying when He affirmed Elijah as a great prophet of God?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

I'm pretty sure Judas made the deal to hand over Jesus for 30 pieces of silver before the last supper, Jesus just controlled the timing of His arrest. They didn't want to do it during the feast for fear of an uprising of the people, but Jesus forced them to play their cards. Judas sought out and conspired with Caiaphas and took the 30 pieces of silver before the eve of Passover. See Matthew chapter 26.

I don't really care for "pretty sure" opinions.

I obviously have an entirely different (free from theological manipulation) perspective on the Bible myth where as you seem married to whatever conformity requires you to believe.

As such I don't think I will be taking anything you say seriously because it is not your opinion but that of some pastor or theologian and you just agree.

I stand by whatever I say or said and if it isn't theology of the mainstream then you will obviously disagree because you stand with mainstream theology.

So we don't really have much to discuss.

a reply to: enterthestage

Well this is a complex topic but I also have a problem with God sacrificing his own Son and at this point it is a major component in Christian theology that he did it out of Love so our sins could be forgiven (I don't subscribe to this at all).

Imo, pretty simple. His son was murdered, not 'sacrificed'. Like so many others, for telling the truth. The same people that killed him are the ones writing the record, to their agenda.

It was a good 'thing'. Hell, the Catholics remind everyone every day with their 'holy crucifix'. The churchians with their symbol of the cross.

Blasphemy to say that, in their circles. Like we agreed earlier they would kill him as quickly today.

a reply to: enterthestage

That's pretty rude. I simply said according to Matthew 26, (read it yourself) Judas made his deal with Caiaphas for the 30 pieces of silver before the last supper. So Jesus didn't tell Judas to betray Him, Judas had already done it and Jesus just controlled the timing of His arrest, making it in Passover when the Jewish authorities wanted to wait till after the feast.

I stand by whatever I say or said and if it isn't theology of the mainstream then you will obviously disagree because you stand with mainstream theology.

I stand with the simple exegesis of the Bible, and that's what is recorded in the text. See Matthew chapter 26.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Pretty sure hes referring to the gospel of Judas

a reply to: Akragon

Funny you say that I was just coming to discuss the Gospel of Judas.

All my previous comments were Gospel based and I would say the same if I hadn't ever read the Gospel of Judas.

But I was going to say that one of the revelations to Judas was that the god of the Jews was a demiurge and not his Father.

This is probably what was told in private to Thomas that if repeated would result in his stoning.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I wasn't being rude at all.

Also read right before the Last Supper, it clearly says that Satan had already influenced Judas. So he was under the influence of Satan even when he made the deal.

What is rude is that you obviously don't read my comments before making your arguments because if you had you would have noticed that I covered that already and you wouldn't be (inaccurately) using that in your argument.

Pay attention to what people say before you comment on their position if you want to be accurate (and not rude).

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

That's pretty rude. I simply said according to Matthew 26, (read it yourself) Judas made his deal with Caiaphas for the 30 pieces of silver before the last supper. So Jesus didn't tell Judas to betray Him, Judas had already done it and Jesus just controlled the timing of His arrest, making it in Passover when the Jewish authorities wanted to wait till after the feast.

I stand by whatever I say or said and if it isn't theology of the mainstream then you will obviously disagree because you stand with mainstream theology.

I stand with the simple exegesis of the Bible, and that's what is recorded in the text. See Matthew chapter 26.

I can tell you do (stand by the simple...).

I prefer the intellectual approach. Which is why I said what you considered rude, I was just saying what you yourself just said. That your interpretation is simple.

a reply to: intrptr

I don't disagree that he was murdered, like I said I don't subscribe to the sacrifice for sins perspective.

But from time to time I do put myself in the frame of mind of that perspective to interpret the scriptures. I argue Judas as not a traitor from that perspective and not from a historical one.

If I saw the Gospels as historical documents I would say Judas was a traitor and that Jesus predicted it and told him and that he still went through with it.

From a mystical perspective I see it how I described it, as the story is told mystically this is how I interpret it. Even without the soteriological component I still see Jesus as having ordered Judas to betray him. And thus I don't see him as a traitor.

History has its traitors, but I don't see the New Testament as history and the traitor of the New Testament is Paul who oddly enough is mentioned at one point as being at the house of Judas (Acts 9:11). I read that today so I have not thought about what it means but I will today.

I think Luke was an esoteric author and leaves many clues for us about Paul while not giving away his own dislike for the man.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

I personally don't think that Yahweh is God or Jesus Father. He never says Yahweh is his Father and I believe that the whole revelation of Christ was that HIS Father (not the Jews father who he calls devil, liar and murderer) is God and that (to me) makes the most sense.

So do you think Jesus was confused or lying when He affirmed Elijah as a great prophet of God?

Neither, I think you are confused about what it means to be a great prophet of God. Just because Elijah is an OT prophet and his name means Yah is my God doesn't mean that Yah is Jesus Father.

It just means Elijah was a great prophet of God. He must have been as he was translated without dying and returned as John the Baptist who was Jesus cousin and no Orthodox Jew.

John's descendants the Mandaeans aren't either and they aren't Yahwists so maybe Elijah found the True God and is great because of it.

a reply to: enterthestage

Even without the soteriological component I still see Jesus as having ordered Judas to betray him. And thus I don't see him as a traitor.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Jesus death was an example. He stood up for his beliefs, even though he knew it would get him killed.

Pretty ballsy.

a reply to: enterthestage

I'm not even talking about what his Aramaic name means, that's not important because that's the name his parents gave him. I'm talking about what he did on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings chapter 18 where he challenged the idolatry and false prophets and prophetesses of Ba'al and Ashteroth to prove that their gods were true and he proved that Yahweh was the one true God by calling down fire from heaven then slaying them all.

So was Jesus confused about Elijah or was He lying about him being a great prophet of God? Elijah turned the idolotrous people who worshipped Ba'all and Ashtetoth back to Yahweh

a reply to: enterthestage

So you reject the book of Matthew as being spurious? It's weird you continually praise the Ebionites as the true Christians and the noble followers of the way, yet ignore the only gospel account from the NT that they themselves held to be an authentic and authoritative document.