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 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.
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]
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.
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
What evidence could someone give you that you'd actually believe?
take it on faith?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul twists that up in Romans by saying that all power is of god and should be followed.
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 answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.
If he was submitting to the authorities of this world, then he wouldn't have been a threat
There is only 1 valid authority and that is the father
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?
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.
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.
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
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.
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.
I agree. God is the rightful ruler of the world. But, Satan is in control right now.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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...
New Religion in the name of Jesus/Christ? Yes.
"New" testament? Yes.
a covenant, esp. between God and humans. (dictionary.com)
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
]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.
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".