Paul ~ Inventing a new saviour

page: 84
9
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Haha.. I can see your point. I simply say G.d does not change (as He declared Himself) and I feel like I am speaking a foreign language. *shrugs*




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Ok if that is so then I apologize, I edited my previous post to take your name off.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Ok if that is so then I apologize, I edited my previous post to take your name off.


Well you didn't have to do that. I still think Christianity is a false religion that doesn't actually follow Jesus and is the church of Satan. Just a superficial replacement for an actual relationship with the father. People who are blind and talk about a personal relationship with god, but don't actually allow it. Most follow only out of fear of god, and fear of punishment, not out of love and respect.

I find the belief that god needs, cares or wants praise and lip service to be down right disgusting. As if God is nothing more than an egomaniac who can't handle or even see the truth. Like we are supposed to be a bunch of David Spade movie characters or something.

What you think is respect, I think is disrespect. What you think it means to worship, I think means to kiss butt and give lip service. What you think it means to "Serve" god, I think means to be a slave.

There is only 1 entity I can see that follows the personality traits of what most Christians call god, and only 1 entity that would have men do the things that the church and most Christians do. It certainly isn't the father I know.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Hey Christ ..I keep hearing you bring up the Law of One ..
Please tell me that your not referring to this ..
www.llresearch.org...

It is New Age mumbo jumbo from channellors ..


No. That's more like the law of "Many and One".
It's not a true "Law of One".
The Law of One states that there can not be two.
It is not readily understood that "the world" of time, space and form and individual differences represents "two".
Two is the domain of "duality".
Duality says for example that...
"In the beginning gOd made the heavens and the earth".
Duality states that there is both "good and evil".
Duality states that there are "one and many".
Duality states that there will be "a new heavens, and a new earth".

The Law of One maintains that there is only the perfect: Heaven.
Beyond the perfect Heaven, there is nothing.

The world is the concept that nothing can take the place of everything by combining nothing with attributes of everything.
However millions or billions of years this seems to "stand" as "the law of separation", "a house divided against itself cannot stand".
This means that what is produced by an apparent split - the world - cannot stand.
So,
It will "pass away".

The One has always been, is, and always will be.
The many, or the "many and one" never was, is not, and never shall be.
It is an illusion...a trick of mind...a spell for the spellbound.
The New Testament, properly understood, breaks this "old" spell, and restores the mind to the Law of One.

Christ!

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Christ!]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by Christ!
 


But see, we don't need to argue over Jesus' lineage because it does not matter. The sufferinig servant and the messiah was declared clearly in the Tanakh.. and I am not sure about everyone else.. but I don't see "Jesus" being named.. Thank G.d... because He will prove Himself by NOT using the hands of man. He will use the mouth of some, but you can not hear when your fingers are stuffed in your ears.



In the Tanakh, everywhere you see the word 'salvation' you see the name Yeshua. This is the Hebrew word for salvation.


Jesus was saved by Salvation, as Salvation was saved from Jesus.
Jesus was Christ, but Christ was not Jesus.
I am Christ, but Christ is not "me".
An actor is who he is. Who he is is not the act.
Persons are acts.
Stop acting.
Salvation is not an act.
Salvation is unmasking the acts and actors to reveal the Truth.

Christ!



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Justamomma and cohorts:

1 John 4:2-3 2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."


[edit on 23-1-2009 by Bombeni]


The anti-christ is whatever is anti-christ. Everything about the world is anti-christ because it is "a house divided against itself". One side of the house is Christ, the other side what is anti-christ. The whole world of time, form, separation, differences, unique status, specialness, limitation, flesh, bodies, brains, contradictions, confusion, words, opposites, duality, secrets, combinations of opposite attributes, nations, planets, stars...all this is anti-christ.

What is Christ is One and the same, and equal and containing the totality of all that is.
What is anti-christ is separate, different, unique, special, unequal and claiming the totality of all that is for itself...claiming that everything anti-christ is the totality of all that is.

So,
Christ is not any one individual, nor anything less than a totality.
John makes Jesus out to be the totality.
What John proposes is anti-christ.
John makes flesh to come from heaven.
What John proposes is anti-christ.
John presupposes the existence of flesh.
What John presupposes is anti-christ.

So,
The test John proposes is inherently anti-christ.
John does not know Jack about Christ.

Christ!


[edit on 24-1-2009 by Christ!]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
So, did Paul help to invent a new savior? And what would be the reason? I say yes to the first and the reason? Well, that will be up to individual interpretations I suppose.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


Firstly, I'll mention an article that I wrote back in 2005 called Righteous Sumission vs Zealous Obedience to Principle, which will go into a whole lot more detail than what I say here.


Now, I am sure the argument will be that “the end of the law” means that he is the “sum” of the law, as I have heard, but yet Jesus (as we are told of him in the Bible) shows that this in not what is meant. Remember, Deut 26:16 says “This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”


I have never heard a Christian theologian interprate "end of the law", as "sum of the law". The word "end", here is translated from the Greek word telos. WE Vine described this word by saying:


Vines Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament Words
..."the final issue or result" of a state or process, e.g., Lu. 1:33; in Ro. 10:4, Christ is described as "the end of the Law unto righteousness to everyone that believeth;" this is best explained by Ga. 3:23-26 ... the following more expecially point to the issue or fate of a thing. (underlined emphasis added)


The point isn't one of the law "terminating", as this would contradict Yeshua's words:


Matthew 5:17-18
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Paul's point is that Meshiach came to fulfill the law, by meeting it's obligations. Friend, you meantion the Torah, but do you keep the opening statements of Leviticus:


Leviticus 1:1-4
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.


These statements, and those after them, are the basis of the burnt offering, which it turn is the basis of every sin offering. If you have broken the commandments, you are requied to sacrifce for atonement. The sacrifice required an identification with it, by laying on of hands. Catch is, the sacrifice is only valid in the Temple, and it was leveled in 80AD. Another possibilty is that you can run into the Temple, and hold onto the horn of the altar, which has the same problem attached.

Meshiach's death fulfilled the Law, in that His was a perfect sacrifice, as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world", prophecied Johannan bar Zacharias (ie, John the Baptist). Likewise one must identify with him in order to receive the benefit.

(to be continued...)



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

Paul's point is that Meshiach came to fulfill the law, by meeting it's obligations. Friend, you meantion the Torah, but do you keep the opening statements of Leviticus:


The problem is why he fulfilled the law. The Christian myth is that he did it so that you don't have to. That is not true. Jesus did it to show you the way so that you could also fulfill the law for yourself.

By Jesus fulfilling the law, he brings understanding to others on how to also fill them.

It is deception that people do not have to actually follow the law or say that the laws have ended. What you bring up in leviticus is not gods law, it is mans law. The commandments are gods law, and those are the ones Jesus kept and fulfilled, he thumbed his nose at man's law.

What better way of getting people to not follow Jesus and his path than to tell them they only need to worship an idol and not actually follow the path? What better way of getting people to not follow Jesus than to praise and give him lip service instead of seeing the path? And tell me. Does Jesus not even warn against these very things? Does he not say those who believe will walk the path? Does he not tell the rich man to give his wealth to the poor, not to just believe he is god come to fulfill the commandments so he doesn't have to?





[edit on 25-1-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christ!
The test John proposes is inherently anti-christ.
John does not know Jack about Christ.


Dude, talk about forcing your views onto the text, rather than taking it at face value.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Do you have any thoughts on "Revelation Chapter 14. Verse 3.? I would love to know your interpretation of this verse regarding....

"They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four Living Creatures,....... "

Peace...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
The commandments are gods law, and those are the ones Jesus kept and fulfilled, he thumbed his nose at man's law.


Please allow me to quote the start of Leviticus again:
"And the LORD (YHWH) called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,..."

In fact, both the "greatest commandment" and the "second" which "is like it" (Matthew 22:36-40), referred to by Yeshua, is not contained with the Ten Commandment, but in Deuteronomy 6:5, and Leviticus 19:18. The "Law", that is repeatedly referred to by Yeshua, is the Torah, along with the "Prophets", which makes up the rest of the Tanakh (known commonly, by Christians, as the Old Testament).


What better way of getting people to not follow Jesus and his path than to tell them they only need to worship an idol and not actually follow the path? What better way of getting people to not follow Jesus than to praise and give him lip service instead of seeing the path? And tell me. Does Jesus not even warn against these very things? Does he not say those who believe will walk the path? Does he not tell the rich man to give his wealth to the poor, not to just believe he is god come to fulfill the commandments so he doesn't have to?


I'm not suggesting that there is an exemption from Judgement for those who violate the Law, only that there was always a contingency added, for those who violate, in the offering of a sacrifice, when coupled with repentance. Yeshua's sacrifice being the "once and for all" perfection of this.

Believing on him, is the means of obedience (Galatians 2:20), not the means of exemption

James 2:10-18
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.


I repeat, it is not a matter of faith or works, but faith proven by works. An analogy was given to me once, where a man hired a maid. He put up "post-it notes" around the house, with directions as to how he wanted things done. Over time the two fell in love, and they married. When they came home, she had taken down all of the notes, not because she didn't intend to do things as her husband desired, but because she wanted to show him that she was doing his will out of love, and not obligation. In the same way, the Law being "removed" isn't about "departing from the Law" but living out of an "Abrahamic faith" (see my next post), where we obey out of a desire placed in us, by faith.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Do you have any thoughts on "Revelation Chapter 14. Verse 3.? I would love to know your interpretation of this verse regarding....

"They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four Living Creatures,....... "

Peace...


I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'll give it a go:

The people referred to sang a song, different from the previously mentioned songs in the prophecy, one that was unheard before, in the vision (note that the earlier song each proclaimed a message of their own, where this one was hidden from John, and therefore us, also).



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT
 


It seems you understand that you have to follow the path, and that is something most Christians don't get.

Have you experienced John 14:20?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT
 


Jesus never once though said he was the end of the Law... that was Paul. He said he came to fulfill it.. big difference.

And also, it should be noted.. he did not say "I come to fulfill the law for all of you." Nope.. that is adding words to the Word that spoke from his mouth.

He was merely a vessel in which the Word could use to show the example to us all. That was it. And thanks to Paul, now people worship the man rather than follow the example that was set.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
Friend, you meantion the Torah, but do you keep the opening statements of Leviticus? Leviticus 1:1-4
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.


I *can't* do that... you know why? Because Paul made sure that I couldn't along with the help of those who built the dome of the rock. This is spoken of all throughout the Tanakh and the ironic part is, you all say that sacrifices are over once and for all because of the barbaric human sacrifice.

The Tanakh clearly states that it is not. However, this is not to the true saints downfall and G.d speaks of why it is not. Because *we* having understood the voice of our Father and in following after His teachings/His ways/His path, are able to offer up our prayers as an offering to Him until He restores the temple and the way He had things set up.

He didn't desire the sacrifices, but He desired our understanding. Thus, He allowed for the sacrifices and offerings to cease for a time until His children FINALLY realized what it was they were missing.. aka, the right heart and the right understanding.


They will resume though. It has already been laid out as such. The fight that will take place according to revelations is actually against the Father's will.. It is deception against G.d's will.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
oh.. by the way.. the above that I speak of can be found in Zechariah and you can see that this is coming to pass in chapter 8... it is only a matter of time and all will see the Truth as it is and not as what they were told it should be.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

Originally posted by Christ!
The test John proposes is inherently anti-christ.
John does not know Jack about Christ.


Dude, talk about forcing your views onto the text, rather than taking it at face value.


John forced his veiws on Christ, rather than taking Christ at face value.
Whatever Jesus said about Christ, John forced his views on Jesus' views.

Christ!



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

Originally posted by Christ!
The test John proposes is inherently anti-christ.
John does not know Jack about Christ.


Dude, talk about forcing your views onto the text, rather than taking it at face value.


John forced his veiws on Christ, rather than taking Christ at face value.
Whatever Jesus said about Christ, John forced his views on Jesus' views.

Christ!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I doubt I originated this concept, but I believe someone (or a group of someones) noted the prophecies of the Messiah's arrival and custom-crafted Jesus to fulfull that role. The objective was to give lawless, destructive mankind a moral framework and hope for the afterlife. And I wouldn't be surprised if this being (or group of beings) had large almond eyes!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhamBamTYM
I doubt I originated this concept, but I believe someone (or a group of someones) noted the prophecies of the Messiah's arrival and custom-crafted Jesus to fulfull that role. The objective was to give lawless, destructive mankind a moral framework and hope for the afterlife. And I wouldn't be surprised if this being (or group of beings) had large almond eyes!


LoL! Well, I do not know if you are kidding about the last part considering all the BS I have seen on this board... but doubtless you are correct that Jesus was tailor made to fit the role.

The reason I could never settle on that belief was, if I were to do such, how would I know that *this* time it was real considering the concept that is brought forth of Jesus was not new.

Having said that though, I do believe the Word was spoken by whomever wrote the story of Jesus. It was G.d's way of picking the snake (deception) up by the tail and turning it back into a staff (the law) for those who are paying attention and not given to man's mythologies. I find the whole of the TAnakh and how the deception was used against those doing the deceiving to be BRILLIANT beyond human intelligence.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by justamomma]





top topics
 
9
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join