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.

 

The Son of Yahweh. Evidence Is Irrelevant.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
There two births that Jesus talks about are the physical birth that all go through and then the spiritual "rebirth" that occurs when one accepts Christ and is indwelled by the Spirit.

I know you don't like Paul, badmedia, but he hits on this when he says that in Christ we're new creatures.


This i had to give it's own post. What the church and Paul does is provide replacements for the real thing. The bible as the "word of god" is a replacement for the word of god. Being baptized in water is a replacement for the the real 2nd birth, which is spiritual in nature and so forth.

This is what gives me difficulty in talking with Christians. When I talk of things, people see the replacements rather than what I am talking about.

Could you gain the same understanding without Paul? If not, then who do you actually follow? Who's understanding?

Your soul was born long ago. It's just the realization and reconnection of it that is the 2nd birth.

Don't really care what Paul said. Paul also says that we are to submit to authority. Yet Jesus was murdered for doing exactly the opposite. Jesus didn't submit at all, he just didn't sin and showed it was better to die without sin, then to save yourself and sin. Paul manipulates that and all kinds of things.

Paul quotes Jesus only 1 time in the new testament, and he makes up almost half the bible. Wasn't around during the time of Jesus, and then makes up a story about converting based on an experience he describes differently 3 times, each of them physical in nature and none of them in line with what is said.

No different than what I said in another thread. It is never the words of Jesus used against me. It is always the words of Paul used in rebuttal. Why is that? Who do you really follow?

If it's about gaining a personal relationship with the father and such, then why do I need to take the word of Paul over the father? If it was so, then the father would have told me so. Instead, I see all the father showed me not to do in Paul.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


hi, thanks for replying on topic.

but unfortunately there is not secular agreement that "israelites" were ever in "bondage" in Egypt. if you look at who the etymology of the word "Hebrew" or "ha bi ru" ~semi-nomads who dwelled mostly on the outskirts of the Sumerian region~ you can begin to understand a few things. things that are not mentioned in the bible. And I believe they are not mentioned for good reason. I wont go into it here, but there is quite a bit of evidence that the lineage of Abraham is a melting pot of ancient royalty stemming from roaming semitic nomadic conquerings bands of people. Some really tough mofos that the Egyptian royalty really did not like.

anyway, there is belief and evidence that the habiru people were never in bondage and therefor never "escaped" from the egyptians the way the bible likes to portray. in fact more than likely there were multiple exodus' at different times.

wikipedia:



Carol Redmount who wrote 'Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt' in The Oxford History of the Biblical World concluded that the term "Habiru" had no common ethnic affiliations, that they spoke no common language,

[edit] Habiru as a loose ethnic group
Scholars since Moshe Greenberg have envisioned the Hapiru, like the 17th century Cossack bands of the Eastern European steppes, as being formed out of outlaws and drop-outs from neighbouring agricultural societies.[citation needed] The numbers of the Habiru of the 2nd millennium BC grew from the peasants who had fled the increasingly oppressive economic conditions of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms.[citation needed]

Some scholars have seen the Habiru legacy preserved in the place-names of Iranian Kabira, the Khabur River valley of the Northern Euphrates and perhaps also the Hebron valley, although the Hebrew and Arabic root for Hebron more likely derives from the word for "friend" (haver/habib)named for Abraham as a "friend of God".[citation needed]


Habiru and the Hebrews
When the Amarna letters were translated, some scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with the Biblical Hebrews (Hebrew: עברים or עבריים, ʿIvrim, ʿIvriyyim). Besides the similarity of their spellings, the description of the Apiru attacking cities in Canaan seemed to fit, loosely, the Biblical account of the conquest of that land by Israelites under Joshua.

The photographs from the 1904 Brested Expedition to Egypt, especially those of the battle of Kadesh incribed at Abu Simbal provide one of the first the first recorded mentions of the ha ibr u[7] in the context of an army that messengers rushed to fetch to the battle.

Scholarly opinion remains divided on this issue. Some scholars argue that the Hapiru were a component of the later peoples who inhabited the kingdoms ruled by Saul, David, Solomon and their successors in Judah and Israel. Rainey argues that Hapiru is a generic term for bandits, not attached to a specific population. He proposes that, in the Amarna letters, Hebrews are referred as Shasu. [8]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 




here is a reference of what I was talking about Abraham possibly being a pharaoh of Egypt:

www.world-mysteries.com...[url=http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rellis10.htm]http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rellis10.htm[/url ]



Shepherds
But if the biblical family were pharaohs of Egypt, should we not see them in the historical record? Indeed so, but first of all the precise era to study needs to be decided and the clue to this comes from the Bible. The patriarchs in the Bible are known as being shepherds, as I have just indicated, in fact the Bible is quite specific about this point. Joseph's family are asked by pharaoh:

What is your occupation? And they said ... Thy servants are
shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.

This point is not just interesting, it is fundamental to understanding what the Bible is trying to tell us. For it just so happens that a whole dynasty of pharaohs were known as shepherds! These were the pharaohs who, in the historical record, had 'invaded' northern Egypt during the 14th to 16th dynasties and these peoples were known as the Hyksos, a term which translates as 'Shepherd King'. Clearly we have a very obvious and very strong link here - in fact it is amazing that so little has been said about this coincidence. There is a great deal of synergy here, the Bible mentions a very special family line of Shepherds of which it says the "kings will come out of you" and likewise the historical record tells us that some of the pharaohs of northern Egypt were called Shepherd Kings. It was a similarity that was just crying out to be investigated and the results of this scrutiny were quite astounding.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
In other words you can not bring the cart before the horse. To even begin to consider Jesus Christ as a God, you must first give evidence of Yahweh existing in the form of the typical fundamental version that most believe Yawheh to exist. If you can not provide any evidence that this form of God ever existed how and why could you even consider Jesus Christ to be the Son of a God that you have no evidence for?

This is my logic. You don't have to accept it



en.wikipedia.org...

What evidence could I give you that you would believe? What if I gave you an audio tape with a man's voice and said it was God? Would you not call me a liar and say that I had recorded my own voice? Would you believe it?

What if I gave you a video of God like that of a burning bush or a picture of Jesus healing the sick? Would you believe it, or would you call it a fake? Would you not say I made it using CGI trickery? I bet you would.

What if you seen God in person and I said look! There's a God! You'd call it a mass hallucination wouldn't you? Or you'd say we were on drugs, or something must be in the water! Or it's the NWO and they're using project blue beam! It's just a holographic projection! It's not the REAL GOD! Correct?

What evidence could someone give you that you'd actually believe? We have video and eye witness testimony and even some scientific tests to show evidence of ghosts, UFOs, alien implants, demons, exorcisms, past lives, near death experiences, reincarnation, or even that prayer works in certain tests. But people deny those things exist not because we don't have evidence, but because they have no faith in that evidence. They mean to debunk it. As they should because it can all be faked. But if it can all be faked, then what evidence could I ever give you?

No matter what evidence someone shows you, you're not going to believe it unless you're willing to make a conscious decision to believe it or not knowing that you have no real proof whatsoever and that you never will.

The reason is because even if you have evidence you can't trust it because you have no evidence that your evidence is really evidence and not faked. Even if you have evidence that your evidence was really evidence, how can you trust the evidence that proves your evidence is really evidence? You would need even more evidence wouldn't you? Now if you have lots of evidence in support of your other evidence you can say your theory is pretty sound.

Like the theory of evolution. It's a pretty sound theory. It's most likely true. However, what you can never say is it's absolutely proved because somewhere there's a piece of evidence with no other evidence to prove the first piece of evidence is really evidence. The only thing you can really say is it's more likely to be true or less likely than another theory.

See, it's a chain that keeps going up and up and up. At some point you get to a point where all the evidence that proves your evidence is correct has no evidence to prove that it itself is correct. So, while science can tell us truths about the world, it can't tell jack about what you believe.

You have to take it on faith. Not because I want you to, but because that's the only way it works because even if you had evidence you'd have to have faith in that evidence or you'd have to have some other evidence to prove your evidence was really evidence, but then you'd just have to have faith in the second level of evidence. See where I'm going? Eventually you have to get to a point where you trust it.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


you address one point with a theory that bare little proof besides a similarity in name. then you ignore the rest of the evidences i stated.

im not sure how i should respond or even if i should respond



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


One correction for you, Yahweh is God's Hebrew name, we would call him that if all the other names in the English bibles didn't use J. But they do, that is why almost all the bibles that choose to use God's personal name don't use Yahweh, but use Jehovah in English.
bible.cc...

www.belowtopsecret.com...
(The Hebrew Tetragrammaton Or God's Name)



[edit on 27-5-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



What evidence could someone give you that you'd actually believe?


its not as difficult as you are making it out to be.. for all the power of a god that suposedly created the universe and life itself, you think he could leave some undefineable message for the creations he has made. something that everyones eyes may see and fingers may touch.

something that broke physics...something undefineable...some common message for every man to see in multiple places maybe? why would that abe so difficult? i mean we are talking about "THE GOD" arent we..the God capable of anything and everything..yet not shred of physical evidence...hhhmmmmm....

i mean if u desire to be worshipped because you are god,, and you are going to condemn people to hell because they dont believe what some pages in a book tell them to believe. and then even better leave that book written in a way where it is open to interpretation how can anyone with any sort of a subjective mind just ....


take it on faith?


hhhmmmmm......

edit to add:

look, i know you desire to have everyone believe as you do. i can tell u that i am open to being wrong...im ok with that.

im not arguing that there is no god. i am arguing about the interpretation most people choose to believe..especially christians...they seem to be the most diluted in thinking (in my opinion)

one thing that should be considered is science has not figured everything out. maybe there is a sign from some omnipotent God somewhere right in front of our noses...who knows?

but the thing is that most of the evidence that exists today points the other way. the other way being the god of the bible in its most accepted interpretation does not exist. and staying in tune with the thread, therefore if the God of the bible does not exist the way people like to believe him to exist more than likeley Jesus Christ was not who most think him to be in the christian interpretation.

i havent given my personal be;liefs o nthis thread, but i can say i believe jesus christ may have existed. i believe he may have been a great man..possibly inspired by some sort of divinity that may be considered some sort of "god" for lack of a better word.

but the way most people view "God" through the picture painted by the Bible is a false one in my opinion. there is no evidence and not much logic that supports it. my goal is not to try and disprove god or jesus christ. just to get people to think a little.


[edit on 27-5-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 




because you posted a few lines about something (the trinity) which has most of Christianity confused does not mean you have cleared anythng up...what else did you post? i didnt see anything else....sorry if u didnt like what i posted..i was just trying to give you a different perspective...as i stated....im posting nothing here as fact.....but i guess i have to realize who it is im dealing with:bnghd:



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


well, many jewsish scholars have rejected that name..thats why i didnt use it. and it is the english name..not the hebrew name. just fyi



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



What the church and Paul does is provide replacements for the real thing. The bible as the "word of god" is a replacement for the word of god.

If I'm to speak and someone wrote it down, effectively, my words are on the page. This in effect is what the Biblical writers did. Many times in the Old Testament, God tells people to write his word down. Later, Peter in Second Peter says that the parts of the Bible that weren't verbally given by God, was nonetheless given by God because he influenced the Biblical writers. Therefore, with that being the case, the Bible is the Word of God.


Being baptized in water is a replacement for the the real 2nd birth, which is spiritual in nature and so forth.

That may be what Catholicism teaches, but the other half of Christendom doesn't believe that. Baptism is a symbol--a sign, to show others publically that you've accepted Christ. This is a prime example of something that irks me--when people take something that Catholics do and attribute it to the rest of Christians.


[quote[Could you gain the same understanding without Paul?
Yes, I could.


Don't really care what Paul said. Paul also says that we are to submit to authority. Yet Jesus was murdered for doing exactly the opposite. Jesus didn't submit at all, he just didn't sin and showed it was better to die without sin, then to save yourself and sin. Paul manipulates that and all kinds of things.

Jesus did submit to the authority. He never started insurrections, he didn't break laws, or anything like that. He exposed the Pharisaical nature of second Temple Judaism. That is what ticked the Pharisees off. They realized also that Jesus was going to take away some of their authority. The reason that he was crucified, if one is to pay attention to the Gospels, is because he declared himself to be God.


Paul quotes Jesus only 1 time in the new testament, and he makes up almost half the bible.

Not true. My Bible has quite an extensive system of cross references. It even differentiates between direct quotes and allusions. If I'm to go back through the Pauline Epistles, much of Paul's teachings come right from the Gospels. In any event, Paul's letters jive with the rest of the New Testament. If there was something up with Paul, I'm sure that Peter wouldn't have called his letters scripture in 2 Peter.


Wasn't around during the time of Jesus, and then makes up a story about converting based on an experience he describes differently 3 times, each of them physical in nature and none of them in line with what is said.

What do you mean Paul's conversion was "physical" in nature? Simply that he saw a bright light? It's evident that Paul's conversion was a spiritual one. He went from persecuting the church, to willing to die for what he believed. If Paul was a con, he wouldn't have gone so far. Naturally, he wouldn't have followed Jesus when he was on Earth because Paul was against Jesus and his teachings.

I think you'd do yourself a favor if you took Paul's recountings of his conversion and put them side-by-side and compared them. I did that when you first suggested that Paul's accounts are all different. That's simply not the case.



If it's about gaining a personal relationship with the father and such, then why do I need to take the word of Paul over the father?

Since Paul is an inspired writer, his teaching comes from the father. Paul was taught by Jesus himself in Arabia and became an Apostle. In those days, an Apostle carried the authority of the one who sent them. Thus, when Paul teaches something, it carries the same weight as Jesus' words.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


That's what I said in my post, and of coarse Jewish scholars will say that, they are Jewish and speak and read Hebrew. I wouldn't expect them to say anything else.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


ok. i thought you were saying Yahweh was the hebrew word. i wa just trying to make that diffeentiation between the hebrew word and the english word which of course is yahweh.

it really does not make a difference to me, but i would stick with what the originators of the Bible have to say about it. the english Bible is just one big mess. thtas one reason i believe christaians have mis-interpreted the Bible so badly. much of the translations are just to difficult. and much o the (english) bible has just been perverted beyond belief...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Interpretations of the Bible get messed up, not through the translation, but through people interpreting allegorically.

I remember learning once before that English is one of the better langauges to translate Greek into.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
If I'm to speak and someone wrote it down, effectively, my words are on the page. This in effect is what the Biblical writers did. Many times in the Old Testament, God tells people to write his word down. Later, Peter in Second Peter says that the parts of the Bible that weren't verbally given by God, was nonetheless given by God because he influenced the Biblical writers. Therefore, with that being the case, the Bible is the Word of God.


No. The father does not give as this world does. The father gives in understanding. The most anyone on this planet can EVER do is to express that understanding. But just because someone expresses that understanding doesn't mean that expression is the word of god. The word and understanding that those who were inspired heard. But not all of them are inspired.

This is why they are not given verbally. I know exactly what Peter is saying there. The father has never once told me directly to follow Jesus, never told me to follow the bible and so forth. Instead he gave me understanding, and I see that understanding being expressed in Jesus. Believe me, if it was not for that understanding in Jesus.

I will give you an example using math. If you know algebra, then you know that the basic understanding of math is A+B=C. Where A, B and C can be any number, so long as the expression remains true. This world can only give you in terms of 1+1=2 or the symbols. It can not give as the father does. The father is not going to tell you 1+1=2. He is going to instead give you the understanding of A+B=C. Notice, even though I am speaking to you about the understanding of math, I am still reduced to using the symbols A+B=C. Because I can NOT give to you as the father does. Once again the most I can do is make that expression.

That understanding is the "word of god". The bible, or atleast parts of it, are just 1 expression. And while it may be a true expression, to say it is the word of god is in itself a lie. It is merely a single expression. Accepting the bible and such as the word of god keeps people ignorant of the understanding.

If you have that understanding, then these things will be as clear to you as a math test. How do I know Paul is fake? Because I understand. Just as I understand math and can tell you that 1+4=5 is true, and 2+5=9 is false.

What you are doing is the equivalent of telling someone that 1+1=2 is the only true statement in math. While the individual expression is true, it is a lie when you present it that way.

The bible is how men and this world give. It's not exactly their fault, because it's the best that they or anyone can do. But it's just simply not the word of god and not a replacement for it. You are accepting as men give, rather than understanding as god gives.

Any fool can walk around repeating 1+1=2. Probably even make a few people think he knows how to add. But it is nothing unless one actually understands what it expresses.





That may be what Catholicism teaches, but the other half of Christendom doesn't believe that. Baptism is a symbol--a sign, to show others publically that you've accepted Christ. This is a prime example of something that irks me--when people take something that Catholics do and attribute it to the rest of Christians.


Yes I will give you this, I do not mean to group everyone together. I realize there are many differences and such. So if I attribute something from another to you, please accept my apologies and ignore it. Certainly not my intention to pigeon hole you into beliefs and such irks me as well. I deal with it often, and can't even mention the term "Jesus" around some without it happening.

However, all the Christian religions are based on Catholicism. And, even if you view it as just a sign to publicly show things etc, it is still a tradition of men, done to look good in front of other men and has nothing to do with actually experiencing the 2nd birth.



Jesus did submit to the authority. He never started insurrections, he didn't break laws, or anything like that. He exposed the Pharisaical nature of second Temple Judaism. That is what ticked the Pharisees off. They realized also that Jesus was going to take away some of their authority. The reason that he was crucified, if one is to pay attention to the Gospels, is because he declared himself to be God.


He did not follow the authorities of earth. There is only 1 valid authority and that is the father. Paul twists that up in Romans by saying that all power is of god and should be followed. If he was submitting to the authorities of this world, then he wouldn't have been a threat. Can't get around that no matter how much Paul claims it.

I am god, and I am arguing with myself. I assume the same is true of you and others as well. Something people will know for themselves if ever born of the spirit. Because what do you think that spirit is? Jesus makes it very clear god is within him, but the father is much greater than him. And the father is much greater than all of us. Things need to be in their proper places. Stand on the line, not above it or below it but on it. Deny anything true of yourself and it's disrespectful to the father. Add anything to yourself and such is also true.




Not true. My Bible has quite an extensive system of cross references. It even differentiates between direct quotes and allusions. If I'm to go back through the Pauline Epistles, much of Paul's teachings come right from the Gospels. In any event, Paul's letters jive with the rest of the New Testament. If there was something up with Paul, I'm sure that Peter wouldn't have called his letters scripture in 2 Peter.


Ok, let's see some examples. I admit I have never added and trusted some information on the 1 quote from a source that seemed really credible, but I'm open. Just a few examples please.

We can put them next to the number of times Paul contradicts Jesus.

Also, can you answer me this. If Paul is to make such a big impact on things. Then why does Jesus never speak of him coming? Writes nearly half the new testament so I'd think Jesus would speak of him coming to do that. But yet, the only person Jesus talks about coming is the prince of this world, and a 2nd and false shepherd.

I'll start with a contradiction.

Paul says:



Ephesians 5 (King James Version)

2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

1 Corinthians 5 (King James Version)

7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


Jesus says:



13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Those who view it as a sacrifice are talking about a sacrifice of truth so that the lie of this world may live. And it has and does. And this religion is part of the lie, thus why it has flourished in the nations for 1500+ years, while those who didn't go along were murdered, tortured and deemed outcasts of society. But yet, Jesus says that they shall be hated by nations.



What do you mean Paul's conversion was "physical" in nature? Simply that he saw a bright light? It's evident that Paul's conversion was a spiritual one. He went from persecuting the church, to willing to die for what he believed. If Paul was a con, he wouldn't have gone so far. Naturally, he wouldn't have followed Jesus when he was on Earth because Paul was against Jesus and his teachings.


Sorry, but as I myself have experienced a vision there is nothing at all that those around me saw. Nothing at all. It happens within the minds eye, not the 2 eyes. He went from persecuting the church to corrupting it. It is how ALL corruption works.

It's just a wolf putting on sheeps clothing. Furthermore, evil killing evil is nothing new. That is why it is evil. That is how evil feeds and grows because in the path of death and destruction the greater evil of the 2 always wins.

What does a politician do? A politician will praise the constitution, praise this country, praise the people. Gotta have that flag pin on, gotta have that symbolism to show the people you are "one of them". But then in actions and so forth(aka their fruits) they serve another master. That is all Paul does. And the people fall for it just like they do with politicians.



I think you'd do yourself a favor if you took Paul's recountings of his conversion and put them side-by-side and compared them. I did that when you first suggested that Paul's accounts are all different. That's simply not the case.


In 1 case the men see but do not hear, in another case they hear but do not see and so forth. None of which is true as they are all physical descriptions.



Since Paul is an inspired writer, his teaching comes from the father. Paul was taught by Jesus himself in Arabia and became an Apostle. In those days, an Apostle carried the authority of the one who sent them. Thus, when Paul teaches something, it carries the same weight as Jesus' words.


Paul claims such is the case.

I can also claim 5+3=24. How would you ever know if I was telling the truth or not? Only if you understand how to add.

What Paul teaches is put above everything Jesus said. It's all a manipulation. As I have said many times and will keep saying - it will always be the words of Paul you use against me, and not the words of Jesus.

Because in reality, it's Paul that you follow, not Jesus. Or would you have me believe it is possible to serve 2 masters?

[edit on 27-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



And, even if you view it as just a sign to publicly show things etc, it is still a tradition of men, done to look good in front of other men and has nothing to do with actually experiencing the 2nd birth.

We baptize because Christ told us to. It wasn't something frivolous that was made up. Also, most of protestantism views baptism as the first step of obedience to be taken after salvation, or "the second birth." Because of that, I would agree with you that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Baptism has no regenerating effects. It shows that you're uniting yourself with something, in this case, Christ. If you're not saved and you're baptized, you're just taking a glorified bath.


Paul twists that up in Romans by saying that all power is of god and should be followed.

Peter also teaches this, so it wasn't just Paul [1 Peter 2.13-14 (ESV)]:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human insitution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to the governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.


Jesus himself even said that all authority comes from God [John 19.11 (ESV)]:

Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.


Jesus also said that we're to give to Caesar's what's Carsar's--paying taxes is a form of obedience to authority.


If he was submitting to the authorities of this world, then he wouldn't have been a threat

Remember that the Romans, who ruled the world, didn't view him as a threat. It was the Jewish religious leaders that wanted Jesus killed. It was them that Jesus stood against.


There is only 1 valid authority and that is the father

I agree. God is the rightful ruler of the world. But, Satan is in control right now.


Also, can you answer me this. If Paul is to make such a big impact on things. Then why does Jesus never speak of him coming?

Why did Jesus not speak about movable press, electricity, or the Second World War? Jesus' mission most of the time while he was on Earth was to present the Kingdom to the Jews. Had he spoken of one Saul of Tarsus would come, it wouldn't have made any sense coupled with the message that he was originally giving.


But yet, the only person Jesus talks about coming is the prince of this world, and a 2nd and false shepherd.

Yes, Jesus speaks of the Antichrist and his false prophet. Neither of which have come yet. This is so because they come at the same time.


I'll start with a contradiction.

I don't think you understand those verses. Paul is saying that Christ died for the atonement for sin. Jesus said this as well, such as in John 3.16. Christ, in the context of the Matthew passage, was saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifices, ie the burnt offerings. He said this because the Pharisees copped a holy than thou attitude when Jesus went to Levi Matthews house for a little get together. The Pharisees trusted in their legalism and adherence to the Mosaic Law to save them. Jesus was quoting Hosea 6.6. God said this throughout the OT, espeically the Psalms--God desired people to be thankful and trust him more than their ritualistic sacrifices.


In 1 case the men see but do not hear, in another case they hear but do not see and so forth. None of which is true as they are all physical descriptions.


Let's take a quick look at those two passages that you're referring to:

Acts 9.7 [ESV]:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.


Acts 22.9 [ESV]:

Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.


In neither of these cases does Paul contradict himself. In some translations, "understand" is rendered "heard". The Greek word is ἀκούω. It has several meanings, as words usually do. One is to hear. [Like I would hear a person talk on the street.] A second is to understand. [Something that I can barely do walking down the streets here in Germany!] So, there is no contradiction because it is entirely possible to hear something but not understand, or comprehend, it.

As for the seeing, I think that it's important to note that Acts 9.7 says that they saw no one [the KJV says "no man".] Acts 22.9 says that they saw the light. But it makes no mention of them seeing the man. So, no contradiction need exist--it would be entirely possible to see the light buy not the man. [Just like I could see the sun but not something flying in front of it.]


As I have said many times and will keep saying - it will always be the words of Paul you use against me, and not the words of Jesus.

And I will always say that Paul's words carry as much weight as Christs because he was sent forth as an Apostle by Christ and an apostles word carries as much weight as the person whom sent him.

Edit: blöde tags


[edit on 5/27/2009 by octotom]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Hi open eye balls! (love the name btw)

Not sure if this video is even relevant to your thread, but it may answer some questions you may have about how relevant it is to be able to distinguish between Yahweh and Jesus. The Bible compares Jesus to Adam, and understanding why this comparison is made is crucial. Also, check out some of my other videos as well.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
We baptize because Christ told us to. It wasn't something frivolous that was made up. Also, most of protestantism views baptism as the first step of obedience to be taken after salvation, or "the second birth." Because of that, I would agree with you that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Baptism has no regenerating effects. It shows that you're uniting yourself with something, in this case, Christ. If you're not saved and you're baptized, you're just taking a glorified bath.


This is why I have a hard time speaking with Christians. Just because Jesus says baptized doesn't mean it is the same as being baptized in the way you know and what is shown. What Christians do is for the eyes of men, not for the eyes of god.

As it is done now, it is nothing more than a glorified bath.



I agree. God is the rightful ruler of the world. But, Satan is in control right now.


But then you have now contridicted yourself. You said the authority is given by god. But now you say the god is the rightful ruler of the world, But Satan is currently the ruler.

All one really has to do is look in Samuel. Those who wanted to be like the nations rejected god. Thus as god is within all, then the authority is granted by the people themselves, not by the father. But that doesn't mean it's right, and that is what Paul equates it to meaning. The people themselves readily ask for it, out of blindness(psalm 82).

I'm not going to fight the powers and authorities of this world, nor am I going to fight for them either. I am subject to their authority sure, but only because I will not take up evil and fight them, not because they are right.

So that people give up their authority and accept the wicked is beside the point here. Sure it is true, but that doesn't make it right and that isn't what Jesus did or what anyone should do.

Do you see what I am getting at?



28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.




Why did Jesus not speak about movable press, electricity, or the Second World War? Jesus' mission most of the time while he was on Earth was to present the Kingdom to the Jews. Had he spoken of one Saul of Tarsus would come, it wouldn't have made any sense coupled with the message that he was originally giving.


But yet, it makes perfect sense that Paul would make the claim and do it after?



Yes, Jesus speaks of the Antichrist and his false prophet. Neither of which have come yet. This is so because they come at the same time.


Really.

Lets see.

New Religion in the name of Jesus/Christ? Yes.

"New" testament? Yes.

Appeals to the nations/political power? Yes.

Done through another man who comes after Jesus? Yes.

Proceeds to kill, torture and hate anyone who doesn't go along? Yes.

Won't be happy until they have established a 1 world theocracy government? Yes.

Has many religions built into it? Yes.

Is this religion persecuted and hated to the end by the nations? No.

Does this religion lead people on the path of death and destruction, wars and crusades, rather than a path of peace? YES!

And so I know you will now make the difference between the catholic church and yours. Yet, is it not the same exact book? Yes! More alike than different. Can't deny the history of this "religion".

Paul tries to serve 2 masters.



I don't think you understand those verses. Paul is saying that Christ died for the atonement for sin. Jesus said this as well, such as in John 3.16. Christ, in the context of the Matthew passage, was saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifices, ie the burnt offerings. He said this because the Pharisees copped a holy than thou attitude when Jesus went to Levi Matthews house for a little get together. The Pharisees trusted in their legalism and adherence to the Mosaic Law to save them. Jesus was quoting Hosea 6.6. God said this throughout the OT, espeically the Psalms--God desired people to be thankful and trust him more than their ritualistic sacrifices.


Jesus died to give you an example. And you take that and make it out to be that he did it so you don't have to.

You have to walk the path, and praising Jesus and believing he did it so you don't have to is just an excuse to walk the path of death and destruction.

God is not so ignorant to sacrifice his only son as a way of forgiving you. If it was just a matter that simple, he would just forgive you. Only men would be so ignorant as to even suggest this. Do you realize what an insult it is to the father to suggest he would do such nonsense?

Those that find salvation in the death of Jesus and the sacrifice are satanic. It is nothing more than the sacrifice of truth so that the lie may live. Why do you think they conspired against him in the first place? So that their lie and authority would live. And it has, and it will as long as people are going to worship in vein.

Proof of this can be found in what Jesus tells the rich man, vs what Paul and the church will tell the rich man. Free gift? Oh hey I can do that. Wasn't so free according to Jesus for that rich man. In fact, it was such a heavy cost the rich man couldn't pay it. Which path is the narrow one, and which is the wide path? Why didn't Jesus just tell the rich man to wait until he was dead and "accept him". Prankster Jesus at it again?

Oh you love that easy way and free gift. Who wouldn't? Of course the lie has to be juicy in order to get one to buy it. Let's see, gee I actually have to walk the path and do all that vs hmm, I just need to praise this guy, give a bit of money to the church and I can be saved.

The only thing that is going to save you is the fact you are just poor in spirit. Blessed you are for that fact, not having known the truth means you have yet to reject it. And it's all cool, because there will be a day when the truth comes to you, and you will accept it. Only need to deceive good people, not the bad ones.


Let's take a quick look at those two passages that you're referring to:

Acts 9.7 [ESV]:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.


Acts 22.9 [ESV]:

Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.



Again, that the other men were even part of the equation at all is the proof. They should not have heard, seen or even known anything about it. Paul does this trying to justify himself, as if it say - look it really happened, the men are proof! And because he didn't understand, he unwittingly tells on himself. It's just not how those things happen. Unless to say he was like moses, which obviously he wasn't.

also:



Acts 26

13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.


He seen the light around his men? Again, meaning - he saw with his 2 eyes, not his minds eye.



And I will always say that Paul's words carry as much weight as Christs because he was sent forth as an Apostle by Christ and an apostles word carries as much weight as the person whom sent him.


What you "accept" is your business. You are your own authority. But it doesn't change that people use Paul in response to me rather than Jesus. I already know why you do it.




[edit on 27-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



What evidence could someone give you that you'd actually believe?


something that broke physics...something undefineable...some common message for every man to see in multiple places maybe? why would that abe so difficult? i mean we are talking about "THE GOD" arent we..the God capable of anything and everything..yet not shred of physical evidence...hhhmmmmm....


take it on faith?


hhhmmmmm......
[edit on 27-5-2009 by open_eyeballs]


The point is, you have to take it on faith because if there is a God I don't think he spends all his time laying evidence around for people that won't believe in it in the first place.

Believers say they see evidence of God all around them. Just looking at the universe is evidence. We have eye witnesses that say they've seen Jesus and talked to him. Not just in the Bible. I'm talking about people alive today saying they had a vision. Even my own father claimed to have seen Jesus in person once. My brother as well. Most of time we put those people on meds. We've had people say they've had near death experiences and we regulate them to the crazy section of YouTube.

We've seen Satan's face in the WTC on 9/11
www.snopes.com...
But we find a scientific explanation for why humans see faces and images in things. Our minds are playing tricks on us right?

We see God's hand in the cosmos.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
But our minds and our eyes are just playing tricks on us right?

The galaxies in the universe have the wrong amount of mass to stick together gravitationally and we don't know what's holding them together. So we invent dark matter right? en.wikipedia.org...

For all we know, we have the burial shroud of Jesus and just won't admit it.
en.wikipedia.org...

You want something that will defy physics? Why? We had people claim that they saw Jesus bring back the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine. We have doctors now that bring people back from the dead everyday, but we can't conceive Jesus may have done it once?

We had people claim they saw moses bring plagues on Egypt on command. But guess what? a few generations later and nobody believes it. So, why should God bother doing a magic trick for you just so that your own children can call you crazy?

The wonderful thing about science is that we keep looking until we find the truth. We'll keep looking for dark matter until we figure it out. That's why you trust science. That's why I trust science. But the point is you have to trust it. It's not self evident. You have to trust the scientists aren't lying to you. You have to trust they did their measurements right. After all how many times do scientific studies just happen to turn out in the favor of whatever company funds the study? What if I told you the latest study says eggs are good for you? Then I told you the study was funded by a big egg farmer. Does the study hold the same weight?

And that's fine, I'm not saying you shouldn't trust it, but my point is if you're a atheist or a believer there's somethings you just have to take on faith because you just don't know everything.

Do I think those links I posted are really proof in God? No, I personally don't, but the point is even if there was evidence all around you, would you even see it? Would you believe it if you saw it? If you disregard everything you hear as a nut job who needs meds and everything you see as your mind playing tricks on you, then so what if God defied the laws of physics for three seconds and walked on water? You'd say so what? Chris Angel can do that! You're asking for something you don't even want.



[edit on 27-5-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
ok. i thought you were saying Yahweh was the hebrew word. i wa just trying to make that diffeentiation between the hebrew word and the english word which of course is yahweh.

it really does not make a difference to me, but i would stick with what the originators of the Bible have to say about it. the english Bible is just one big mess. thtas one reason i believe christaians have mis-interpreted the Bible so badly. much of the translations are just to difficult. and much o the (english) bible has just been perverted beyond belief...


I know someone who would say that the bible has many levels in this regard. And that one should not get just the written version of the bible, but must also heard the verbal word. Meaning, a bit of help with understanding and someone to insure it is not misinterpreted.

It is generally said that one can not understand the bible unless they have the holy spirit. I have to agree with that. I was once an atheists, then agnostic and during that time I could read the exact same pages of the bible and they literally didn't mean much at all to me. After I gained real understanding, when I read the exact same pages suddenly I could see tons and tons of understanding in them.

You see the way certain "codes" for lack of a better name form and keys in it. For example, Jesus says he is the "truth, the light, and the way". That is a key. When people only see a physical Jesus and person, as I did before I gained understanding, then it doesn't have the same meaning. That is when you get into those who just accept because someone told them to, and people who praise but don't follow and so on.

And when you gain that understanding, it's not just in the bible you will see it either. Everywhere you look you will see it. Everything that Jesus deals with you can see before you in todays world. All of it.

I did agree with you when you mentioned that one must prove god before they can prove Jesus and putting the cart before the horse. But I must tell you that is not something any man can prove to you. It's just not possible. If you really want to know the answer to that question, then you will be making a very personal journey in search of that answer. It's both hard and easy at the same time. Like looking for your car keys. So hard when looking for them, but when you find them you think "duh, can't believe I didn't look here sooner".

Personally, I think realizing that you simply do not know is the first step in the right direction. And you seem to be doing that. Honesty is the first step to wisdom, and that is an honest look at the situation. If it doesn't add up, then there must be a reason for it.

But I think I'm going to one up you on the cart and horse, Jesus before god. How can one expect to know god or what god is, if they have not yet figured out who and what they themselves are, and their reason/purpose?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



New Religion in the name of Jesus/Christ? Yes.

Christianity is the only religion in the name of Jesus. Jesus didn't say that there would be a religion that comes in his name, but rather that many would come saying that they were the Christ, denying that Jesus is the Christ. That is what the false religion will do in the future.


"New" testament? Yes.

In an earlier day, testament meant "covenant". In fact, covenant is still noted as one of it's definitions today:

a covenant, esp. between God and humans. (dictionary.com)

With this being the case, one could easily change the word testament to covenant when referring to the parts of the Bible--The Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Covenant referring to the Mosaic Law the New Covenant referring back to the "New Covenant" that God promised to Jeremiah. Jesus also said that in his blood was the new covenant:

Matthew 26.28 (ESV) (cf. Mark 14.24 & Luke 22.20)Jesus speaking:

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Interesting that he said that he died for the forgiveness of sins--something that you've denied that Jesus did!


]Appeals to the nations/political power? Yes.

True biblical Christianity doesn't appeal to nations or political power. To say it does is a joke. If Christianity appealed to politicians, government would be much smoother in it's efficientcy and there would be no greed in the walls of Congress, Parliament, the Bundestag, or whatever. Politicians use Christianity in a wrong way to get votes. Just as some may say BHO used his herritage in a false, and half truthful way, to get votes.

Talk to missionaries around the world and see if the closed nations they're working in find Christianity appealing. I know missionaries who have been stoned for preaching the Gospel.


Done through another man who comes after Jesus? Yes.

Since Christianity can't be the false religion, as it doesn't deny Christ, than Paul can't be the figure that comes after. Look for someone in the future.


Proceeds to kill, torture and hate anyone who doesn't go along? Yes.

I want to see these Christians. Sure there have been things done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't make someone a Christian. I could go and kill and rape scores of people, in the name of Krishna, but that doesn't make me Hindu.

I, as a Christian, don't hate people that aren't. That would mean that I would have to hate you, badmedia, which I can honestly say I don't. I would have to hate 99% of the people that I see walking around in Germany, which I don't.


Won't be happy until they have established a 1 world theocracy government? Yes.

The actions of a few political Christians shouldn't be construed to mean that's what everyone believes. The Christians here in Germany are quite happy living the way that they do. They're patiently awaiting the return of Jesus, just as I, and thousands of other Christians are. That doesn't mean though that I'm happy when a government allows abortion, but I understand that since government isn't Christian, it's foolish to force my beliefs on them. All I can do is make my case and sit back and wait for Jesus to establish his kingdom in his time.


Has many religions built into it? Yes.

It is sad to me that there is a trend toward ecumenicalism. It is something that is needed to happen though before the lawless one can be revealed. One must stay alert and make sure his beliefs line up with Scripture.


Is this religion persecuted and hated to the end by the nations? No.

I refer again to the missionaries that risk their lives in places like Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria. I know people who have been stoned. I know missionaries who have been executed. When I was in high school, I knew people who hated me because I was a Christian--and I hadn't done anything to make them hate me.

The fact that people as a whole haven't accepted Christianity--remember, including Catholics, it's only about 1/6th of the worlds population--it can't be the false religion that is run by Antichrist. Remember that people will be forced during that time to be a part of this religion--something Christians today don't do.


And so I know you will now make the difference between the catholic church and yours. Yet, is it not the same exact book? Yes! More alike than different. Can't deny the history of this "religion".

No, it's not the exact same book. The Catholics added books in the 1500s. Catholics don't rely on the Bible as much [if at all] as I do. They follow the word of the Pope and what the Church and Catechisms tell them to do and believe.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join