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 man, woman, and man/God

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Why did Jesus call himself "the son of man" if he wasn't a son of any man according to christian belief, but rather the son of God. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he was just a man or the son of God? It might make sense if the christian "God" was a man, but "He" is not according to today's widespread christian, jewish, and islamic beliefs.

"God is not a human being (איש : ['iysh]), that he should lie, or a mortal/son of man (בן–אדם : [ben-'adam]), that he should change his mind: Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? " -Numbers 23:19

But why then is He (God) called a man in some Jewish Texts? The Greek term "ho anthropos" means "the man" and is used to refer to Adam, the first man, as well as to God. puzzling. Interesting to note that Adam is a human being and not referred to as a son of man and for a good reason since he is not a son of any man, just as God is not a son of any man and is not referred to as such. So why would God be called a man and Jesus the son of man? And I know that usually the term "son of man" means simply a human, but I think in this case the term has been used deliberately to convey specific meaning. I could be wrong though. It seems to me, however, that the term "the son of man" used to be interpreted literally just as the phrase "he who is born of a woman" is taken literally:

"Or how can he who is born of a woman be clean?"-Job 25:4

Jesus was born of a woman, however he is considered the exception to the rule that we are all sinners. This passage seems to be implying something more however about sin, that the woman is perhaps less than clean and that whoever is born of a woman inherits that trait(I know it's controversial, but how can this verse not be taken offensively?). It is interesting that when "mankind" is being referred to in the bible it is usually not in the above phrasing of "born of a woman". So there must be a reason that the author decided to put "woman" instead of the usual word "man".

It is also interesting to me that usually the bible uses the word "man" along with "son of man" (most often in the same verse), if "son of man" meant simply "man" then why would it be necessary to use both terms together?

And one more oddity within the bible I have noticed is that while Jesus is on the cross, he says to his mother, "Woman, behold your son" and to John, "behold thy mother". Is there something more here than meets the eye? I don't know for sure, but why did he not just say, "John, take good care of my mother for me, k?" Instead he says that his mother is John's mother. And yes, I know that the usual interpretation of the meaning of this is that everyone who loves Jesus is part of the family of God, but I'm just saying, perhaps there's more that we have looked over and assumed something different from what was really intended. So I would just like anyone's thoughts on all of this or possible conclusions that can be made from this, or perhaps you would just like to argue your own view, all responses are welcome, just please don't start a religious debate that cannot be settled civilly. thanks.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by cancerian42]




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
As Jesus loving man, I'd just like to say that the kicker for me, on top of your well thought out arguments, is that nowhere does any entity proclaim the bible's words to be the truth unless there is gain to be had.

What I mean is, Jesus never says "read the bible", he went to "scriptural school", if you will, and there, he read all different types of scriptures compiled from information gathered from all the lands.

He despised the religious powerhouses of his day.

I guess what I'm saying is that the interpretations of the bible in some cases are something that most can't understand fully.

I kind of think of it like if i was visited by a particle physicist and he told me all of our secrets, like i'm talking the blackops particle physicist that thinks ufo's are out of date, and he explains to me how everything works and all the amazing stuff. Then I'm supposed to go to my jobsite and tell everyone tehre what he said.

It would be a disaster and they would probably put me in the loony bin.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
I guess what I'm saying is that the interpretations of the bible in some cases are something that most can't understand fully.

yeah, I agree. I don't like it when people think that they do understand something fully when really they don't. They cheat themselves out of learning and growing. And the bible is full of all kinds of errors that it would take a God to figure out the true meaning of the whole thing. But I just thought this would make an interesting discussion, don't really know if we'll come up with anything conclusive or not.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
It's easy.

As Messiah, Jesus is the first born Son of God.

His Father, God is from above (heaven) and he is Spirit.

His Mother, Mary is from below (earth) and she is human.

Jesus is the first fruit of both natures, born of woman (through the womb of Mary) and the closest I can come to describing God is that he is "mind." So Jesus has both natures; a physical body and God's mind.

It goes by many names and guises but in most mystical traditions, the crowning Glory of the initiate is to experience divine union with our maker. It's been called the sacred marriage, the bridal chamber, mystical marriage and/or any combination of these.

Marriage is a constant theme in the Bible and these are not just idle stories to be told around a campfire. They are told so we have a deeper understanding of the reality of God and his role as Husband and maker. Jacob's wife was found at a well because God the Father is the source of living water - and just as Jesus explained to the Samaritian woman, many years later at the very same well - He already knows everything about you, all your faults and exactly how many people You have slept with so why not just go ahead, give him a chance and ask him for a drink and he will give you the gift of living water? After all, Jesus is the bridegroom.

Now.... like Paul said, the mystery of marriage is great. You and I both know what goes on between the bride and groom on their wedding day, when they go behind closed doors. The brides veil is lifted, and the love of a man and woman is a truly beautiful thing but it pales in comparison to the love of God. In fact it doesn't even come close. One love is from below and one is from above. When Jesus died the veil into the Holy of Holies was ripped open from top to bottom - allowing us to partake in the unveiling of God's mysteries.

After a man and woman unite, they often times have a child, which is born from below. This is one type of a Son of Man.

And the product of divine union between the bridegroom and the the bride is also the Son of Man only his nature is different; spirit.

Jesus even questioned the Pharisees about this very nature:

Jesus: What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Whose son is he?"

Pharisees: The son of David.

Jesus: How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?

The Messiah is the one who resurrects inside of us and becomes the Son of Man and this is how we will all be taught by God.

Don't believe me? Go look at the Olivet discourse and see who is returning at the Second Coming. Is it Jesus? Or is it Jesus in his role as the Son of Man?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 


it's pretty simple, but has more than one meaning. First Jesus does claim to be the son of God flat out in a few places also.

John 8:57
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 10:30
30 "I and the Father are one."

So why does he say both? One thing Jesus is trying to convey when he says he's the son of man, is that he's a man. Even though he is God, he's a full fledge human being too. In the flesh.

Also, Adam was the first man, the name Adam, is sometimes read like (this only really works in English but), sometimes means a-dam or a man. God created a man. In other words sometimes the name Adam is codeword for just a man and sometimes son of man is code for Adam.

In other words, Jesus is not just a human, he's Jewish too and is from the same blood line as Adam. Is the son of Adam. He is Jewish in other words. And this is very important for what comes next.

Okay, so what's all the hoopla? Obviously there's more to it then that right? Obviously you can tell by the way he's using it, it's some type of code word right? WHAT'S THE CODE! WHAT'S THE SECRET JESUS IS TRYING TO TELL US!???

Well he's, through code, also trying to tell us that he's the one that fullfills a certain Old Testament prophecy. Specifically Daniel 7:13.

Daniel 7:11-13.
11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

In other words, this prophecy must be fulfilled by a son of Adam EDIT: Meaning flesh and blood human. And it's saying this son of man would have authority over the world.

In other words son of man is Jesus saying that he is the one that has this authority and is the ruler of the kingdom that will never pass away.

In other words, Jesus is basically using double speak here. Through a trick of the words he's calling himself son of man, but the actual meaning is Son of God without actually having to come out and say it.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo

What I mean is, Jesus never says "read the bible", he went to "scriptural school", if you will, and there, he read all different types of scriptures compiled from information gathered from all the lands.

He despised the religious powerhouses of his day.


In case you may have overlooked something, I would offer this for consideration.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Luke 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.


First, a Doctor as used above, means a teacher, and does not carry the same meaning today.

www.eliyah.com...

1320. didaskalos did-as'-kal-os from 1321; an instructor (genitive case or specially):--doctor, master, teacher.

and the Origin

1321. didasko did-as'-ko a prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb dao (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application):--teach.


This should apply to a Minister or Priest or Rabbi in this case and not what we today believe a Doctor is.

With this said, these learned Teachers of the Holy Books (Rabbis) where astonished at his understanding and answers.

Why would this be the case? How would a 12 year old know so much more than the Teachers of the time?

Jesus is the Word of God come to life. He is the Living Word. He was not "Taught" this knowledge. He was that knowledge within the shell of a man.


I kind of think of it like if i was visited by a particle physicist and he told me all of our secrets, like i'm talking the blackops particle physicist that thinks ufo's are out of date, and he explains to me how everything works and all the amazing stuff. Then I'm supposed to go to my jobsite and tell everyone tehre what he said.

It would be a disaster and they would probably put me in the loony bin.


Here's the point of this Heyo. Jesus was never taught by the BEST Teachers. He wasn't taught at all. And he knew more and better than the Rabbis did. That's the message.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
When you postulate from a position of falsehood, you draw incorrect conclusions.

Most early christian sects did not regard him as the "Son of God", but as a man.
The dominance of the God/Man position came later.
Add to this the deliberate manipulation of the "Holy" scriptures at much later dates (by men) and the fact that all references to him are third party. This should bring you to the conclusion that the Bible as reference is "tainted" and lead you to consider other sources and postulate new questions with regards to both him and the religion (now multiple, his "followers" cannot even agree amongst themselves) that grew up AFTER his ,alleged death and resurrection.

For clarification, I am "none of the above" with regards to religion. I am however greatly interested in mythology and the ability to manipulate it to ones own ends.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
It goes by many names and guises but in most mystical traditions, the crowning Glory of the initiate is to experience divine union with our maker. It's been called the sacred marriage, the bridal chamber, mystical marriage and/or any combination of these.

very interesting observation.


Jesus even questioned the Pharisees about this very nature:

Jesus: What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Whose son is he?"

Pharisees: The son of David.

Jesus: How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?

It is interesting that Jesus refers to the Christ as "he" rather than "I". Perhaps this means you are correct in saying that the Christ is one who resurrects inside of each of us.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by cancerian42
 

In other words, Jesus is not just a human, he's Jewish too and is from the same blood line as Adam. Is the son of Adam. He is Jewish in other words. And this is very important for what comes next.

I don't really understand why you mention he is Jewish since Adam was (according to the bible) the father of the entire human race, not just jews...so everyone would be from the same bloodline as Adam (did I miss something?)


In other words, this prophecy must be fulfilled by a son of Adam EDIT: Meaning flesh and blood human. And it's saying this son of man would have authority over the world.

I don't know if that is what it meant because it said "like a son of man" that's not really saying it has to be flesh and blood.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdCase512
For clarification, I am "none of the above" with regards to religion. I am however greatly interested in mythology and the ability to manipulate it to ones own ends.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in any religion. I am also interested in mythology in the same way that I am interested in religion. What do you mean by manipulating mythology to ones own ends?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 


Yeah, you missed a whole lot. A whole book full of references. Actually about 66 books worth of stuff.

1 Corinthians 15
45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Jesus was the last Adam and is referred to as such. You'll have to Google around to understand what that means. Or just read the Bible if you ever get a chance.

It basically means he was the last sent by God to save God's special people. I'll let you read the Bible to figure out who the special people were. But the point is, this is one of the other meanings of Son of Man. These "special" people wouldn't have accepted a savior that was not one of their own. In the end they didn't anyway.

Cool thing about Jesus is he decided he'd save everybody else too. These not so special people would be the gentiles.

All Jesus is saying here is that he is sent by God and has ALL the proper authority to do so. In other words by saying Son of Man he's saying, I got all my bases covered. I'm sent by God. I am the Son of God, I'm also human, and I'm Jewish. I have all the required authority.

What it is not, is a typo that means Jesus wasn't the Son of God. He outright claims it and there's no way to get around that. Unless you claim the Bible is "tainted". But if it's tainted how can trust any of it? Including the parts where he says he's just a man? You can't. For all we know, the "early" version would be the tainted one.

However, if you're looking for an earlier source, just go to the Old Testament which is even older than the first Christian texts. Right in Daniel it says the Son of Man to come is sent from God from the clouds. To say otherwise would contradict all the prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus and so it still wouldn't make sense.

The only way it could be true and make any sense is if Jesus was claiming to be the son of God. So, no the whole Jesus saying he was the son of God wasn't just a typo where what he really meant is he's NOT the son God. Him saying he WAS the son of God was very deliberate here. It wasn't an accident.

He had to be called Son of Man to fulfill a prophecy. It doesn't mean he is JUST a man. It simply means he is ALSO a man.


EDIT: He had to be flesh and blood because it's a little hard to die for the sins of mankind if you can't die.


[edit on 30-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by cancerian42
 

Jesus was the last Adam and is referred to as such. You'll have to Google around to understand what that means. Or just read the Bible if you ever get a chance.

ok I googled and found that the Hebrew word "adam" is both a common noun for mankind and a proper noun for the first man, therefore Jesus was the second first man but the difference being he was of life-giving spirit??? I didn't find anything about it meaning He was Jewish though.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Groupies--

The term Son of Man (Aram. bar Enasha) is taken from the Aramaic sections of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Daniel, chapter 7:13-18 and is imbued with Daviddic Messianic (and warlike) overtones:

Aramaic Dan 7:13ff (in a late Macabbean dialect from around 165 BC)

QUOTE 13 And I looked, and behold I saw in a great night vision, one like the Son of Man (Aram. Bar Enasha) and lo, he was approaching with the clouds of heaven, and he comes to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before his face(s). 14 And there was given him Dominion over the earth, and also Glory, and a Kingdom, in order that all peoples, nations, and tongues shouldst bow down and serve him:

And lo, his dominion is an Everlasting Dominion, which shall not pass away, yea, his Kingdom shall never be destroyed. 15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions in my skull troubled me. 16 I approached one of the Watchers that stood near, and asked him what was meant by this vision: and lo, he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things which I saw.

17 And he said that these great beasts, four in number, are four kings, which shall arise and stand upon the earth. 18 But the Saints of the Most High EL shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.'

This particular verse seems to have had some grave importance for R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, probably because he claimed to have Daviddic blood, and was waiting for the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Pompey (BCE 63) to arm his followers and revolt against 'the Kittim' (i.e. the Roman Occupation) in AD 36.

'Repent now, for the Kingdom is at hand; yea, the Times of the Gentiles is over !' was a mantra of his apparently, which did not sit too well with Rome. Nor did his Temple Tantrum ('with whips and cords') nor his striding into town on the White She-Ass of Solomon with a clear reference to

Read the unpointed Paleo Hebrew of the Book of Zechariah 9:9 - 9:16

(Rejoice, O Jerusalem, for thy King cometh to thee, Even the Righteous One, full of the salvation for Israel-- yea he he shall ride humbly: , upon an ass, yea, upon the foal of an ass;

And in that Day when I cut off the chariot from Ephraim, the battle horse from Jerusalem, I shall also cut off the the bows and arrows asunder, then it shall be he alone who shall dictate Terms of Peace unto the Gentiles (Heb. 'Goyim' i.e. non-Judaeans), for his Kingdom shall stretch from one sea to the other, his dominion to the very ends of the land [of Israel.

And when I YHWH have raised up your sons O Zion, against the sons of Greece, even as the sword of a giant, I myself shall be seen by them; yea his arrow shall shoot forth like lightning, in the Day when YHWH shall blow the war-trumpet, which sound shall follow the whirlwinds of the south--for in that Day YHWH of Armies shall defend them all, for they shall eat up their enemies in that Day with slings and stones, and they shall make a noise like him who has drunk new wine, yea they shall be filled with the blood of the slain as with the corners of his sacrificial altars--for in that Day, YHWH they clan-god shall save them as the Flock of his People, lifted up even as the gemstones in a crown, as an Ensign for the Gentiles...'

One cannot overlook the warrior-aspect of that Daviddic pretender who armed his disciples with swords (Luke 22:38-44) in AD 36 during the 100th Anniversary of the Roman Invasion--but then again, look how that turned out. He was arrested and strung up for armed Sedition against Rome during 'the Insurrection' (see Mark chapter 14), the details of which were left out of the gospel accounts (since the Judaeans after all, lost the War against Rome when the gospels were circulating, not once, but twice, AD 66-70 and AD 136-138 during the 2nd 'Bar Kokba' revolt during the 200th anniversary of the Invasion...

All military stuff !!!!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

So basically what you're saying is that Jesus (or Yehoshua bar Yosef if you would like) was putting himself into the prophesied messiah's place?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Hi Cancerian--

Reading from the socalled 'canonical' Greek 4 'Nicene Council approved gospels' it is very hard to say how this this R. Yehoshua bar Yosef person thought (we have less than 1% of the words he uttered during his ministry years, and 99% of these are Koine Greek phrases placed into his mouth) and even harder to determine anything concrete as to whether or not he identified himself with the Son of Man (Aram. Bar Enasha) or whether he thought of himself as a last-miunute precursor to the Son of Man as the Final Judge and King in the 'Last Days'...

Sometimes he seems to have used phrases (albeit in clumsy greek placed into his mouth) like 'when the Son of Man comes into his Kingship' which arguably could either refer to himself or some other person in the future.

See e.g. Matt 16:27 and parallel sayings like it for an example of some Future Son of Man e.g. 'when the Son of Man shall come in Power upon the Clouds of Heaven to Judge the World sitting at the right hand of the Most High and with his Holy Ones with him...'

At other times, it seems clear he is referring to himself by the appelation, e.g. at the arrest for armed sedition on the hill at Pesach in the year 36CE

'And he stepped forward and addressed the Temple Police and their Guards, saying, Do you dare to come out against the Son of Man with sticks and swords as if you were apprehending a common thief in the Night? I was with the people every Day in the Temple preaching the Word, but you never once dared lay your hands on me---but, now, during the hours of darkness give you strength, for ye are all sons [of darkness...]' (Luke 22:52-53)

More loosely understood, the weird phrase Bar-Enasha can also mean generically 'a human being' as Ben-Adam does in the Psalms (What is Man that Thou art mindful of him? Or the son of Man, that thou shouldst care for him?)

e.g. Luke 9:58 'Foxes have their dens, and birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to rest his head' - meaning loosely, 'animals may have natural homes to go to sleep at night, but mankind does not' ; sometimes this expression may be written in the plural e.g. 'but the sons of men have no natural place to sleep' etc.

See also: 'And he put this question to the Pharasim, saying: Tell me this, was the Sabbath Made for Man or Man for the Sabbath? And they said to him, Rabbi, the Sabbath was made for man.' And he said to them, you have answered well: therefore I say unto you, if the Sabbath was made for man, then the son of man has mastery over the Sabbath (Mark chapter 2:27).

Whatever the case, the whole idea of the Bar-Enasha in the Last Days has apocalyptic End of Days overtones, in the context of the Roman Occupation which this Yehoshua person evidently thought was going to end after the 100 years was up (it began with Pompey's invasion in BCE 63, and he was preaching up to his death in the year 36 CE, the 100th year, aka the Year of the Insurrection (see Mark 15:1 where 'the Insurrection' is mentioned casually without comment or introduction as if the audience the gospel is addressed knew all about it...)

His immediate (probably Daviddic) family evidently thought he sometimes went out of his mind, and was probably prone to manic-depressive episodes which might have included spiritual ecstacies (Mark chapter 3:21 Gk. 'ekstatis ei', lit. 'he is outside of himself', which could mean (literally) 'he is in an ecstasy' or the more common Greek meaning in English 'he is insane' (i.e. 'he is out of his mind'), followed by the phrase 'and they sought to put him away...' (i.e. lock him indoors until he regained his wits).

So heaven only knows what went through this man's mind...apparently, at least according to the writer of the 1st gospel (whoever he was), he was awaiting '12 legions of angels' to overthrow the Romans after he armed his little band of merry men--but these angels never showed, and, well, look how that turned out...



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 


Okay I'm sorry. I guess I should of started more at the start. Sorry, this is just a give in when talking to other Christians.

See, Christ wasn't Jesus's last name. It was a title. Adam is a title. Other things like Son of Man, Messiah, Lamb of God, and so forth are titles that have definitions in the Bible somewhere. If you have time.

Son of Man was just a short hand way to say which titles and qualfications Jesus met without going on and on and on with a gigantic list. Such as listing his entire blood line from Adam all the way down to Mary every where he went. That would have been annoying.

Son of Man would have to be a Jewish Messiah. A Jewish Messiah="Savior"="Anointed One" and had to be from certain Jewish blood lines. It's just a give in for anyone that knows the religion.

But to say that to a a Christian is like saying water is wet. You're not really telling them anything they don't know so I didn't go over that.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go over them here without going off topic. All I can really say is Son of Man=Messiah=blood line=Jewish=human being.

We're just working from the top down is all.




[edit on 30-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 


There can be more than one Messiah in Judaism. The movie definition that we use for Messiah today of like in the Matrix with Neo as "The One" isn't the same definition they used back then.

Back then it just meant to be anointed with oil and then go on to do something great for the Jewish people. There were lots of Messiahs.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Groupies--

'Repent now, for the Kingdom is at hand; yea, the Times of the Gentiles is over !' was a mantra of his apparently, which did not sit too well with Rome. Nor did his Temple Tantrum ('with whips and cords')

All military stuff !!!!



A mantra?Lol Come on.... First of all it was the Levite, John the Baptist who first preached to repent because the kingdom is near. Jesus only did AFTER his baptism and then only after the spirit rested on him.

Furthermore, I've yet to read any text that adds in the line "yea, the Times of the Gentiles is over.'

And why did you address your post to groupies? Groupies as in - people who believe Jesus is the Messiah, compared to someone like yourself who obviously believes he's a Davidic pretender? Maybe I'm taking it wrong and you are just not very tactful in how you word things.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Hi Myrtales--

My term GROUPIES means, (to me) 'members of this thread', i.e. meant to be taken ONLY as a friendly intro.

Maybe you are a little over sensitive like most 'bible' believers most of whom are very insecure about their contradictory and outdated (and 'messy') belief systems--let's hope you're not so sensitive moving forward...

Persuant to your observations about my comments, the fact that R. Yochanon bar Zechariah (aka John the Baptist) was R. Yeshoshua bar Yosef's own rabbi and began what Yehoshua finished is neither here nor there...not sure of what point you were trying to make...(apparently this Yehoshua guy took over 'John's apocalyptic end of days ministry when his old teacher lost his head, literally (cf: Amen I say unto you, the Fountainhead of Prophecy was severed with the head of John....', from the Gospel of R. Yehudah bar Yosef, ha Tomah ('the Twin'), aka Gospel of Thomas).

Remember (although persons who style themselves 'Christians' to-day are not told this, generally) that R. Shimeon bar Yonah ('ha Kephah' Gr. 'Ho Petros,' lit. 'the Rock' aka Simon Peter [which by the way is a a Zealot Warrior Title for The War of the Sons of Darkness Against the Sons of Light, cf: 'Sons of Thunder', aka Benei Regesh for Yakkov and Yohanon bar Zavdai, aka the Sons of Zebedee] and 'Peter's own blood brother 'Andreas' were BOTH disciples of 'John the Baptist' having swung over to Yeshoshua's side after their Rebbe's decapitation in the subterranean Prison of the Macharus Fortress in present day Jordan. Heavens knows how many other of the '12' were first followers of John (kind of gives new meaning to the phrase 'follow me', i.e. 'John is dead, I am to take his place, follow me...') rather than Yeshoshua having to run down the street randomly picking up strays--he already had a captive Apocalyptic End of Days Audience.

At any rate you cannot remove the fact that at the end at least, R. Yehoshua bar Yosef not only armed his followers with swords on the hill waiting for 12 legions of angels to overthrow the Kittim, but the whole of the preaching of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was within the CONTEXT of the Roman Occupation which he sought to overthrow by the Kingdom of David.

The Phrase 'The Times o the Gentiles is now fulfilled ('filled up' i.e. 'now over and done with'), Repent now and believe the good-news of the Kingdom !' (i.e. Romans go home, we're taking back the promise land from the filthy rotten dogs/goyim...) hearkens back to the taking of the so-called Promise land for the first time by 'Mosheh' ('they all shall return back Hither in the 4th Generation, when the Times of the Amorites shall be fulfilled' see e.g. Gen 15:16)

I say 'mantra' because he said it alot apparently, and it set the tone of his ministry; the fact that he borrowed the phrase from his Rabbi 'John the Baptist' does not mean he himself did not parrot his teacher. They both believed that the End of Days for the Kittim (i.e. the Romans) was near, and that the Kingdom of David would be re-established (out of power since 587 BC when Babylon ground Judaea to powder)...

Clear as mud?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


Well thanks for clearing that up, Sig. I would venture to say, that all of us groupies can get sensitive at times. One groupie my gather as much info as they can from various texts to formulate their opinions for whatever reason (they could be bored for all I know), while another hits the books with a yearning to know the intricate workings of the spiritual mysteries of God himself.

One person may only be capable of a physical understanding of the simple words 'Follow me' that Jesus spoke. They may see it as a war cry or a call to arms against Rome, especially if they start factoring in the wrong ideas of why the boys would need swords, and erroneously thinking J.C. was waiting on some hill for twelve legions of angels. He wasn't waiting - he said he had them at his disposal. Just as I've never seen the two lines together 'Repent now, for the Kingdom is at hand' and 'yea, the Times of the Gentiles is over!' - I've yet to see any text implying He was some crazy assed loon waiting on a hill for God's angels to come and save him - and if it DOES exist, then I'm 99% sure the whole text is bent against him.

On the other hand, another person may see the same words (Follow me) and look at them with both a physical and a spiritual understanding. In a physical sense it could mean something as simple as 'Follow me and you'll see things that will blow your mind.' Then there is the spiritual side of things where you know the words actually mean 'Follow me - and I'll show you the way to God.'

It just goes to show, that we really do break down into two groups, those WITH experiences and those without. If it is God who searches the hearts and minds of individuals, as the scriptures proclaim, then maybe the answer to why we each perceive these texts so differently is best explained by the effort and intent we each use to gain knowledge.

Next - John the Baptist. I brought John up because you erroneously put two lines together, that Jesus didn't say. You can't take one line from Genesis 15:16 and add it to the opening line of both John & Jesus' ministries and then call it an "apparent" mantra. I mean - you can - and you did - but it's not gonna fly. And as a side note, I'm pretty sure the line about the 'head of propchecy being cut off" with the Baptizer came from the Apochryphon of James and not the Gospel of Thomas as you stated.

This is a really good thread and I hate that it got derailed, so in an attempt to put it back on track:

John the Baptist and Jesus' ministries started the same. Repent and get baptized. We are told, by the forerunner who is John, that if we do these two things, that one WILL come after this and baptize us with spirit and fire. Jesus is the one who taught the resurrection. Any person who has deligently studied the scripture and even the texts found in Nag Hammadi - know that there are TWO resurrections. Most people who believe in Jesus as the Messiah also believe in the Rapture - and there is nothing at all wrong with that (at least they are aware that something huge is going to happen to them as a believer). Then there are those who believe more along the lines of what is found in the Gospel of Philip, that the first resurrection can and should be attained now and that what others deem as the rapture is actually something just a tad bit different (sacred union). That everything Jesus done was done through a mystery and that as Messiah he can reveal not only himself but can also disclose the mysteries to those he deems worthy.

And if the things he taught come to fruition, that makes him 'the one." The fruit of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the Son of Man, and that makes Jesus' new name, Emmanuel (God with us) just as it was foretold.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by Myrtales Instinct]




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join