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.
Originally posted by helen670
Manifesting His kenosis, Christ cleansed His own body in water not because of His sinfulness but because He was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36; cf. Ephrem, NH 2; John Chrysostom, Bapt. 2, PG 49.366). Thus He acknowledged the importance of the Old Testament which He came to fulfil.
"His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power," "that he might be revealed to Israel" as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God."
The above is not what members of the Roman Catholic Church believe. What we believe is stated in the "Nicene Creed".
The following is a quote from the link Orthodox America, Holy Fathers - St. Athanasius
About the year 180, however, a serious error appeared, called Adoptionism. According to this false teaching, Christ was not really God at all, but only a man who had been "adopted" by God! Still another group, the Sabellians, believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were but different "aspects" or manifestations of the one God. In other words, it was God the Father Who dwelt in the womb, becoming the Son at birth, etc. These dangerous ideas were of course purely human inventions, completely alien to the faith of Christians; but they prepared the way for an even more terrible heresy.
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."
Yuri Kuchinsky
Quite simply, Jesus was baptized so he could enter into the Melchizedek priesthood so He could be the High Priest and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
- washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
- Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism.
Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3)
I believe you, really where billions would not. Unfortunately his cousin the very same man who supposedly baptised him and heard the voice from heaven declare: "this is my son in whom I am well pleased." did not, for he had to send his own desciples not long after this event to enquire of the son and God himself: "art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"
Originally posted by BaastetNoirThats dumb talk form Catholcis and OnceSavers who cant even read what the Bibel ells them... Jesus baptism had nothing to do with sin...it was a cerimony to show EVERYONE he was telling the truth.
In other words, God the omnipotent could not manifest himself for every living human being to see at once, nor could he say out loud: all those who do not believe in me will immediately be turned into jellyfish. Then make it so in order to make humans believe that he was the most high; the most powerful; their creator. No, he had to turn himself into a human so as to utterly fail as to identifying himself. And why exactly? Because he loves the fact that as time goes by he can sentence more of his children to unfathomable tortures in perpetuity?
Giving him humn attributes helped people identifying with him, and it would make it easier to listen to what he was saying.
Originally posted by Michaeljp86
Jesus did sinned once showing his 1/2 man side. When he said my god my god whay have you forsaken me, he sinned.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Imperium Americanum:
So in your mind, R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean consciously chose to be baptised by R. Yohanon bar Zechariah because....he was trying to fulfill the prophecies of being the Messiah of both Israel (kingly/Daviddic) and Aaron (priestly/Levitical) i.e. in a single person, and not as one of TWO people (i.e. the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel) which is spoken so often in the Dead Sea Scroll corpus?
I'm not sure where all this high priest thingy comes in, unless of course you see him as the High Priest of MelchiZedek who "sacrifices himsef" and also at the same time "pontificates" over the sacrifice in a levetical manner by being washed in the Bronze Sea (Heb Mayim) of "Moses" complete with the 12 bronze molten oxen idols at the bottom that the levites bathed themselves in, in front of the "Tabernacle"?
And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. And he blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand," and he gave him a tithe from all. — Genesis 14:18-20
Could it just be that R. Yehoshua was becoming a disciple of John the Baptist (R. Yohanon bar Zechariah) by being baptised by him for the remission of his own sins perhaps committed in the days of his youth (unattested in the gospels, naturally) ?
Didn't he even say of "John the Baptist" : "Among men born of women, no one is greater than John [the Baptist] that his eyes should not be averted in his presence" ?
or, "The Fountainhead of Prophecy was Severed with the Head of John the Baptist...." in other words, he seems to have held John in rather high esteem--which would have made sense if he were a disciple of John the Baptist before John was executed (cf: the reference "the Fountainhead of Prophecy was severed.."
Yet I can see the tendenz for most believers to try and force meaning into the event, such as dragging Noah's flood into it, or make it a kind of pre-crucifixion act of salvation-redemption for others---
I'm just wondering if there was not a more mundane reason for his being baptised for the remission of sins if believers think he was sinless (whatever that means).
Originally posted by Michaeljp86
Jesus did it for an example. He wasnt god though so he could sin, 1/2 god 1/2 man. Jesus did sinned once showing his 1/2 man side. When he said my god my god whay have you forsaken me, he sinned.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
In other words, God the omnipotent could not manifest himself for every living human being to see at once, nor could he say out loud: all those who do not believe in me will immediately be turned into jellyfish. Then make it so in order to make humans believe that he was the most high; the most powerful; their creator. No, he had to turn himself into a human so as to utterly fail as to identifying himself. And why exactly? Because he loves the fact that as time goes by he can sentence more of his children to unfathomable tortures in perpetuity?
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Banjo:
Torah says that the High Priest must be of the Tribe of Levi.
But R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was of the Tribe of Judah not Levi (all that Daviddic blood you know), so technically (according to Torah) he could not be a "high priest" (baptism or no baptism), unless you want to follow the "logic" of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever he was, certainly not Paul---not even close to his Greek style) who made "Iesous" a "High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek" (lit. "righteous-King" or "priest king = Heb. Melekh = king + Heb. Tsaddiq=righteous one, or priest ) who offered Abraham BREAD and WINE in Salem (later renamed Jeru-Salem) according to Genesis chapter 14:18
Marg brings up an important point: if his Baptism in the (filthy) Jordan by Yohanon was "for the remission of sins for the world", then what was the naked seditionist doing (exactly) dangling from that Roman gibbet on Golgoltha at Pesach in AD 36?
The obvious of course—Should God desire to manifest himself and his truth to the world, he need only do so in such a manner that cannot be misconstrued by anyone. It is that simple. Yet, according to some men, he took the circuitous route by allowing himself to be witnessed by just a few and then have those convince all else that he in fact declared himself his own son in whom he was well pleased. And worse! It was expected that all of humankind would just bow their heads and say—yes we believe! I happen to think that God is much smarter than the men who stupidly devised his and the trinity's existence.
Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaWhat the heck are you talking about?
I think you ought to re-read my post for the mockery within it as to who believes, or rather, furthers the never-ending torture of hell. For the record, you will never find in my posts a testament to my personal belief in hell, or that place of never-ending torture, since such a testament will never be found coming from me. Hell is however, without a doubt, an imaginary place in the feeble minds of some humans, and utilized by those who understand how to prey on others and further the fear of those they wish to control. It works too. And just so you understand the fear-mongering works quite well, you need not look farther than the end-times predictions regards to Revelation on the ATS board for that proof.
You of course assuming that there is a place of never ending torture. I for one do not. I am a subscriber in a belief call the Annihilationism. Sorry another debate, no doubt. My G-d is not cruel, he is just.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The obvious of course—Should God desire to manifest himself and his truth to the world, he need only do so in such a manner that cannot be misconstrued by anyone. It is that simple. Yet, according to some men, he took the circuitous route by allowing himself to be witnessed by just a few and then have those convince all else that he in fact declared himself his own son in whom he was well pleased. And worse! It was expected that all of humankind would just bow their heads and say—yes we believe! I happen to think that God is much smarter than the men who stupidly devised his and the trinity's existence.
I think you ought to re-read my post for the mockery within it as to who believes, or rather, furthers the never-ending torture of hell. For the record, you will never find in my posts a testament to my personal belief in hell, or that place of never-ending torture, since such a testament will never be found coming from me. Hell is however, without a doubt, an imaginary place in the feeble minds of some humans, and utilized by those who understand how to prey on others and further the fear of those they wish to control. It works too. And just so you understand the fear-mongering works quite well, you need not look farther than the end-times predictions regards to Revelation on the ATS board for that proof.
Yes, he does think small if that is your concept of large.
Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaYou mean something like taking a small splinter sect of a third rate theocratic country's religion and seting the course of western history for say the past 2000 years. Why not the whole world and it's history since the beginning of time? Yeah you are right...he does think small! LOL
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
2,000 years is young, in fact it is nothing but a juvenile. But you obviously do not know this. The Egyptian religion under Amu/Ra/Aten, evolved and lasted for a minimum of 4,500 years. And if you want to take the Old testament as fact, the Hebrew religion continues to exist 5,765 years from the date of creation.
To complicate this 2,000 year history, Christianity has seen itself morph into tens of offshoots. So secure are you that 2,000 years means strength, you neglect to examine the declining hold of Roman and Greek Catholicism in the last 200 years alone.
You did not include same because you refuse to accept that the Jews do not accept your Christian faith as part of theirs. You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism for more than one reason, not the least of which is that to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority. You are less than 2,000 years old, no matter how you look at it, even after you now try to attach an extra 3800 years to your initial claim after being cornered.
Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaI did not include the Hebrew years for simplicities sake. But I feel it is fair, thus Christianity, a sect of Judaism, is one of the oldest religion. Even older than your Egyptian example.
Actually, I was arrogant enough to allude to evangelicalism as the basis for the most current and scant centuries old challenge to Christian doctrine. But then, as I expected, you missed it.
So arrogant are you in your response that you fail to account for the incredibly rapid advance of evangelicalism. Which will soon be the largest sect of Christianity. The decent of the RCC and GOC is not a bad thing. Think of it like democracy comes to religion. Besides gives us a few more thousand years...we will still be here.
I outgrew jokers in my early twenties. but thank you anyway.
On another note how about some dancing jokers
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Imperium Americanum:
How can you say that Christianity (Messianic Judaeism after AD 36) and Rabinnic Judaeim (beginning in AD 70 after the 2nd Temple of Herod was destroyed) is in any way older than the more sophisticated Egyptian Relgious traditions which go back to at least 3500 BC?
The first "identifiable" Hapiru (or "Hebrews") on the scene, as separate from the Canaanitish clans from which they sprang, did not emerge until the time of the Hyksos around 1400 BC.
One cannot speak of Judaiesm as a recogniseable religion (i.e. Yahwistic monotheism) in the separate-from-Canaanite-religion-sense until after the Babylonian exile c. 480 BC, when Yahwism was forced on the population--an event which is fairly late. Certainly much later than the older Egyptian religous cults along the Nile (e.g. ancient gods such as Ptah, Amun, Re, Aset (=Isis) , Djechuti (=Tehuti or Thoth), Wasir (=Osiris), Hewur (=Horus), Maat, Baast etc.)
Before the time of the Exile, "Jews" worshipped a variety or "pantheon" of Canaanite and imported gods including Yahweh, e.g. Baal, Asherah, Dagon, El, El-Elyon, Nebo, Attanuzzi (i.e. Adonis, or Tammuz) El-Shaddai etc.
Just a quick heads up in case your a little muddled on your time line....!
The first "identifiable" Hapiru (or "Hebrews") on the scene, as separate from the Canaanitish clans from which they sprang, did not emerge until the time of the Hyksos around 1400 BC
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
You did not include same because you refuse to accept that the Jews do not accept your Christian faith as part of theirs. You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism for more than one reason, not the least of which is that to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority. You are less than 2,000 years old, no matter how you look at it, even after you now try to attach an extra 3800 years to your initial claim after being cornered.
Now the point of fact is, that the Jewish religion claims to be alive from day one, when in fact, there is no evidence of same prior to the 8th century BCE, and I am being generous with that age. Unlike Egyptian religions which as I have said date to millenia before, and by the way, are documented in stone, that very primitive form of record before papyrus was manufactured.
Now if you think you can prove otherwise, then present at least one document or stone carving belonging to the Jews and their faith that dates back to...let me make it easy for you....Moses. ca 1444BCE, I will even allow you the Mose of Egyptian record who along with his mother, filed a claim in court for a piece of land.
to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority.
Now the point of fact is, that the Jewish religion claims to be alive from day one, when in fact, there is no evidence of same prior to the 8th century BCE, and I am being generous with that age.
from Wiki- Sea People: “Curiously, and in contrast to most theories of their origin, the Egyptians depicted them as being circumcised, and having Semitic names. As a consequence, more radical, and less accepted, theories of their origin have been proposed, suggesting that the Sea Peoples represent a group of people from Canaan. In these theories, the group of 5 sea peoples mentioned together are identified as the 5 groups with coastal lands during the era of Solomon:
The Peleset are the Philistines (the name Philistine being a phonetic corruption of Peleset+-ine)
The Danua are the Tribe of Dan
The Shekelesh are the Tribe of Issachar (Shekelesh being understood to translate as men of Sheker, a corruption of men of Sachar)
The Weshesh are the Tribe of Asher (technically the name is equivalent to Uashesh, and so in the theories is a corruption of Asher)
The Tjekker are the Tribe of Manassah (an Egyptian tale Wenamun explicitly mentions that Dor is a Tjekker town, and Dor is the name of a place in the Manassah region)
Since these place the Philistines on the same side as the tribe of Dan, this suggests that the Tribe of Dan, and the others, later joined a different confederacy, historic Israel, of which they were not originally part, resulting in great enmity (as recorded in the Bible) with the Philistines, whom they had thus betrayed. Also, Tjekker itself is understood, in the theory, to translate as of Aker, a town in Asher's dominion whose original inhabitants were allowed to remain. This requires, in the theory, that Aker was originally part of the land of Manassah, and Asher invaded the area, indeed, as the tale of Wenamun recounts, Beder (a name not mentioned in any other Egyptian text) was the prince of Dor, and the closest name mentioned in the bible is Bezer, a prince of Asher, implying Manasseh was the vassal of Asher. Kenneth Kitchen in On the Reliability of the Old Testament rejects these views as contradicting the Bible, which as an Evangelical Christian, he believes to be inerrantly true under all situations.”
Actually, I was arrogant enough to allude to evangelicalism as the basis for the most current and scant centuries old challenge to Christian doctrine. But then, as I expected, you missed it.
So secure are you that 2,000 years means strength, you neglect to examine the declining hold of Roman and Greek Catholicism in the last 200 years alone.
Considering that the Judeo-Christian relations, or more precisely, the lack thereof do not manifest itself for centuries unril after the death of your Jesus, yours is not good reasoning, or even suspected good reasoning. The only plausible fact is that Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because he did not have any impact on Jews of his day, at least none to warrant even a cocked eye, nor did the accounts of his ministry adhere to prophetic expectation, as expounded by the prophets who spoke to God; the very same prophets Christians adopted and blasphemously claimed were hailing your (Christian saviour). The same can be said for Israelites stealing Egyptian dogma, and Islam stealing Christian dogma. The two things they all have in common is that each claims theirs to be the exclusive purview of God, and theft of doctrine.
Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaThere is a good reason most Jews do not accept Christianity as a splinter from Judaism, I would suspect that it has more to do with the history of Christian-Jewish relations than it does directly with the canonical differences we face.
They did not adopt you, you! without their blessing, adopted them. And accordingly, the commonality you speak to is claimed by all Abramic faiths, yet none of them agree to bow to the other.
You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism…
is deflated by Peter, who is represented as a Jew and relative of Jesus per the gospels,and is by Clement of Alexandria’s account, anti-Jew, to wit he quotes Peter as having said
The primary focus of the NT was on a Jew living in Israel and the first converts and followers of the faith were Jews,…(exh. A)
"Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day."
I see no historical inaccuracy within it, save to say your declaration in the above quote that it is so. What in essence I do see is you at odds with yourself. You need only refer to your own quotes which are marked above as exhibits “A” and “B” to note that you are talking in circles.
You contention that:
to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority.
Is historically inaccurate. In fact the marked rise of Christianity in the Roman world was at a time when the church was castrating all Jewish influence from it’s self.(exh. B) To be correct it was the incorporation of these other foreign religious beliefs that made Christianity More appealing to the various non believers.
I am convinced now. “Wiki” which is a conglomeration of posts by any and everyone, accepts that which is denied by historical and archaeological evidence. And then to add to your insult you offer something dating back as far as 200 years before to 1,000 BCE.
Wiki Accepts the fact that there is strong evidence of a Hebrew existence before 8th century BCE:
I appreciate levity, and applaud it when I see it.
That is too bad, I thought we all could us a bit of levity.