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.

 

Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pumpkinorange
reply to post by badmedia
 

Badmedia, I think I can see where you are coming from. You asked for some evidence to contradict your thougtful research. Here is one that addresses some of your concerns regarding Paul:

1Cor 1:10-17

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephasa”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."


But there is only 1 true teacher, there is only 1 true master, and there is only 1 thing to follow - the way of the tree of life, which is the way Jesus shows.

And what of this?



1Cor.4

14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.


This is also where he tells people to call him father.




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Not Authorised--


Hi Sig!

I was going to post a detailed response to this, but I realized that I would just be wasting my time. I do not need to "prove" myself to you, or anyone else. I've probably forgotten study on textual criticism than I remember. As a result of these fruitless pursuits, I've wasted more time in my walk, digging through the wisdom of the world instead of being in the Bible learning about God than I care to admit. I've traveled that road, and instead of shaking my faith, it has only strengthened it.

I narrowed it down pretty well to the following. You either believe what Christ said, or you don't. If you don't believe what Christ said, you got bigger problems than who wrote or compiled the book of Isaiah.

You ignored the issue I presented, and came up with a bunch of insults, and wisdom of the world as your retort. Nor is it surprising, for it has become increasingly incorrect in this world to view the Bible as the word of God. This clearly will only increase to the point where eventually people like me will be outlaws, subject to the powers that be in persecution. How many threads and statements in this board alone has called for killing or harming all Christians?

If that is what it takes for just one person to be saved, then praise God.

Either way, I invoked the KISS method:

The Lord verified it, and at that point, the issue is moot as to who wrote it. He said it was Isaiah (singular), I believe what He said, and He it was Isaiah, as entire libraries have been filled with "Textual Criticism" both refuting, and verifying your statements.

Pick your poison so to speak. It's not my eternity on the line.

As for "scholars"... well...


"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

They can debate all they want. I'll take the foolishness of God and his saving over the wisdom of the world. Ironically, it pleases him when with all the wisdom of the world comes against what he says, that we still believe.

I did find two statements you said quite interesting though.


the internet has an abundance of material that could guide you 'into the light' of reality, and away from the gullible superstitious stance that fundamentalist 'Christians' (who have no working knowledge of the original Aramaic sayings of their purported founder) seem to wallow in.


Which light of reality were you referring to? This one?

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And the wallow statement.

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you"

Which side am I on in these verses?


Pity, really...time to open the mind and let the facts flood into your consciousness like Dr Ehrman did 20 years ago---it might have been a frightening experience for someone with his own originally fundamentalist background, but, in the end, he said it was more than worth it.


As for Bart.. his background from the Moody bible institute means nothing to me. So you have a defector.. great. Does that verify anything? What about other atheists who now believe, or evolutionists converted to a creation model. Is anymore above the other?

Then again, if books aren't on the best seller list, I guess they don't count.

If anything, I expect the scoreboard to be in favor of the world. Christ himself said the way is narrow, and broad is the path that leads to destruction. If you're with the masses, then you're on the wrong road.

1 John 2:18-19

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

John states quite clearly that Bart Ehrman was not part of "us".

The Holy Spirit in his wisdom has placed a refutation textually of every heresy against the truth, long before you and I were born. Your issues are with Him, not with me.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I think you definitions are incorrect. You pose "adherent" as an opposition to "anti-christ". Anti- does not necessarily mean "against"; it can also mean "in place of" or "in imitation of". Anti-christ are those who are imitations or imposters of what christ actually represented and taught.
Anti-christ are those who put on a godly outward pretense, but who are inwardly corrupt. Many christians are actually anti-christ in that their message is one of division and hatred. Fake christians? If they do not uphold the principles that revolve around love for one another, they are the Anti-christ.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


A little background Althea.

Bart Ehrman was an "Evangelical Christian" during his teens.

That led him to the Moody Bible Institute in his desire to understand the original words of the Bible.

He moved on from there, leading him on a study of ancient languages and eventually to the school textual criticism. That which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God.

He now considers himself an agnostic, with him considering that the Bible we have today is a chop shop of unrelated texts filled with inaccurate verses, forgeries, etc.

Whats implied here would be the same as say.. Billy Graham turning around and saying God doesn't exist. Or other Evangelical authors such as Hal Lindsey, Chuck Smith, Walter Martin, etc doing the same.

(Not giving kudos to Graham on this, he has issues with doctrine, but I'm using him just as an example as he's well known)

He qualifies quite readily to the passage I quoted. It's nothing new. You can have unsaved people in your congregation whose hearts are evil, even the so called "best" Christians. Judas Iscariot was with Christ 3 1/2 years and was not saved.

Checklist for "Spirit of antichrist" according to John for Bart.

1.) Denies Jesus is the Christ - Check (Agnostic)
2.) Left "us", and returned to the world - Check (Previously Evangelical)
3.) Denies Jesus came in the Flesh - Check (Denies Romans 8)
4.) Is he a deceiver? - Check (His bestseller books prove as such)

Make sense?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Yes, David did act like the conquering hero.
I got this book the other day and was quite struck with some of the comments in it by the author. It is the essay, The Royal Ritual in Judah, in the compilation of such essays in the book, From Genesis to Chronicles, by Gerhard Von Rad.

Now from all we know of the matter, conditions in Judah were much more favorable to the development and persistence of a fixed royal ceremonial than in the Kingdom of Israel. Kingship in the northern kingdom had never quite lost the character of the ancient Israelite institution of the charismatic leader. The appointment of a king, as well as the act of coronation, followed the dictates of a political situation that at times was extremely fluid. Who was to know when and where Yahew would appoint a new king? The much more stable situation in Judah offered far greater opportunities for a fixed ceremonial. Here the crown remained for centuries in the same dynasty, and, what is more, there was the strong contributing factor of a continuing ancient tradition of sacral kingship handed down from the old pre-Davidic city-kingdom. Revitalized by Yahwistic beliefs, this proved to be an important formative element, at all events so far as its outward form is concerned. Samaria was a new foundation made by Omri, and from this point of view there is obviously a great contrast between the two cities.
He seems to be implying that David benefited from the Jerusalem tradition and kind of co-opted it as his own, as a sort of fusion, to gain power and stability for his dynasty. My opinion is that during this process it would have been counterproductive to kill off the entire priesthood of the underlying Canaanite religion, whatever that may have been.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia


Hi Badmedia

I was going to write a really lengthy reply, as I had already started working on it for over 2 days.. From showing a type of the sacrifice of Christ in Genesis, to Psalm 82, to concordance and historical relationships as to what the "scribes" really are as a leadership position, not authors of the Bible. I was even going to tell of my own vision and hearing the small still voice of God quoting scripture I've never read. I elected against that lengthy response with much prayer.

This will be my last response to this thread in general.

Mainly because of the following statement alone. I simply cannot reconcile at this point, that we are speaking of or to the same God. I speak of and talk to the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph. I was taught their same truths by His Spirit, and verified as truth in his scripture.

I do certainly know of another 'father', that rejects the blood of Christ. This rejection goes far past so-called Pauline theology, and aims rejection at the very words of the Spirit which testifies of His blood.


And you think salvation is found in the sacrifice and blood of Jesus? If so, then I couldn't disagree more.


It is the only way, and in fact it's so important to understand, that it was in 3 of the 4 synaptic Gospels. Christ himself said the following:


And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.



Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Remission, release from bondage or imprisonment, forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty of sins.

John pounds it home much more clearly in the 4th Gospel.


Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


Have you done so? Your statement above implies you've rejected his blood. If you've rejected his blood, you do not have Christ dwelling in you. If you do not have Christ dwelling in you, then the Father does not as well.

Many of his disciples that heard the same thing, and reacted much the same way as you do:


"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"


Their reaction...?


"From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."


Can you be a follower or disciple of Christ and not be saved? Yes, you can. These disciples followed him, but could not accept his message of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood.

John and Peter both understood this, and is why they both stated the following.


If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.


The blood of Christ is not a Pauline idea. Christ taught Peter, Andrew, James, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Simon the purpose of his blood during the Last Supper and beforehand.

Even Judas, after his betrayal, while possessed by Satan, admitted that he had betrayed innocent 'blood'.

more...



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


So, you are talking about Jesus and the last super as being about sacrifice, but it is nothing of the sort.

The Last Super is a remake of Proverbs 9. In which the blood and flesh represent the wine and bread of Proverbs 9. This is in line with Jesus being "the word in the flesh", and as such his life is wisdom and knowledge expressed etc.

When he speaks of the blood and the "new convent", he is talking about understanding being the new convent, nothing about a ritual blood sacrifice. Notice what he is saying to do with these things?

Now, take a look at Proverbs 9.



Proverbs 9

1Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

2She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

3She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

4Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.


Notice that it is wisdom who is the carpenter here that built the house. We also have the table, and notice what is on the table? Bread and wine, same as the last super. Notice that wisdom is telling them to eat of the bread and drink of the wine.

If you go back to Proverbs 8, then you will see that it is wisdom who guides the path to heaven.



Proverbs 8

1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.


So, with the OT we had the written law, of which men tried to keep etc. But only those with understanding are able to keep the commandments(Psalm 111:10). And then the written law becomes tools of those who enforce it, as they pick and choose with to enforce.

What Jesus does is he gives people the understanding they need in order to follow the commandments. And Jesus sums this understanding up in the 2 commandments, which are to love one another as yourself and to love god. From these 2 basic understandings one can come to understand all the written commandments, and also know which laws are of god, and which aren't.

Thus, that entire passage you are quoting as being about sacrifice is actually in fact about gaining the wisdom and understanding one needs to keep the commandments, and that is also what guides the people on the path/way.

What does Jesus say about sacrifice?



Matthew 9

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.


He is quoting Hosea 6. Why is it that Jesus never tells anyone the christian line? Why does he never tell the rich man to just believe he died on the cross for his sins and so forth



Hosea 6

6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


Jesus says he brings sinners to repentance. But now you have completely changed repentence from being about fixing your mistakes and keeping the commandments, into believe the truth was sacrificed so that you may live.

Only 1 thing lives when the truth is sacrificed. Why do you think it needs to return before the end?

It's not about blood sacrifice as Christianity teaches, it's about finding and gaining the knowledge and wisdom needed for one to keep the commandments, which is to repent for your sins. Repent = fix/change. Sins = mistakes.

So, the only "new convent" Jesus brings is that people can keep the commandments based on his example and understanding, rather than the written law. To have the understanding behind the written law, so that they would no longer need the written law. Yet, he does not end the law, he fulfills the law so that the people can understand. The OT is full of it talking about this understanding and knowledge needed, how it is that which is rich in the eyes of god and so forth, over the blood sacrifice etc. Jesus delivers that, and all those who believe in him will be those who keep the commandments and those who once again eat from the tree of life etc.

What does John say in 1 John? Anyone who does not keep the commandments, the truth is not in them. Why does Jesus speak about those who will call his name, but he knows them not, because they did works in sin? All these things Jesus says, but you will not see it because you have been blinded by the church dogma.

Now, you can believe in the blood sacrifice all you want. I think such is foolish, but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that one must keep the commandments, and that is what is going to matter in the end - do you keep the commandments or not?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


Even so, what you have written and stated in this thread, is very reminiscent of the article and quotations I've read from a Retired Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong.

Spong believes that scientific advances in the last two thousand years place the Bible in the category of a book of fables.

Seems thats, in some type or flavor, is what you feel as well.

In his address to the 124th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, on January 30, 1998, Spong said:


“So the mythical religious language of a finished creation, the fall, original sin and the need for a rescuing God becomes language out of touch with our present perception of reality. The loss of this mythical framework has also rendered meaningless the normative portrait of Jesus as the divine rescuer, and the story of the cross as the sacrifice designed to pay the price of sin. Those concepts are rapidly becoming all but nonsensical."


He went further, as in his article “A Call for a New Reformation”, Spong submits twelve theses. They are:


1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.


Namely, I see hints of of #3, #5, #9, #11, and #12 in your posts. More striking, is #6 as I singled out with bold/underline in the quote above.

I'd venture to say, the lessons you attend is following after some of these theses.

I strongly recommend that if you are in such, you need to listen to what the Spirit says to the church of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3.

In summary for those watching and reading, as prophesied by the New Testament authors, false prophets and false Christs are appearing in rapidly increasing numbers these days.

They come to pervert the gospel of Christ, and substitute for it one that replaces the longstanding truths of sin and redemption with inclusiveness, relativism, universal salvation, and/or a complete release from accountability. Instead of man being inherently sinful and evil, he is inherently good and ignorant. There is no condemnation, therefore no need for divine salvation, and thus no need for the flesh or blood of Christ.

I'll close with the following. Those that understand what I speak, should take great comfort in the following.


They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

It's not about blood sacrifice as Christianity teaches, it's about finding and gaining the knowledge and wisdom needed for one to keep the commandments, which is to repent for your sins. Repent = fix/change. Sins = mistakes.
If Jesus was to be the Passover sacrifice, the best way for that to happen would be something like Jesus is in the Temple speaking to a large group, when an infuriated priest comes up from behind and stabs him in the neck with a large dagger.
Instead, he is taken outside the city as so much refuse and held at a distance, as one would hold a poisonous snake. This is what Jesus predicted about himself, that he would be lifted up, as Moses had lifted up the bronze serpent on the end of his staff. Jesus made himself sin, so that those who gazed upon the site would be freed from the poison of sin, and live.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by badmedia
 

It's not about blood sacrifice as Christianity teaches, it's about finding and gaining the knowledge and wisdom needed for one to keep the commandments, which is to repent for your sins. Repent = fix/change. Sins = mistakes.
If Jesus was to be the Passover sacrifice, the best way for that to happen would be something like Jesus is in the Temple speaking to a large group, when an infuriated priest comes up from behind and stabs him in the neck with a large dagger.
Instead, he is taken outside the city as so much refuse and held at a distance, as one would hold a poisonous snake. This is what Jesus predicted about himself, that he would be lifted up, as Moses had lifted up the bronze serpent on the end of his staff. Jesus made himself sin, so that those who gazed upon the site would be freed from the poison of sin, and live.


Yet he says himself clear as day that he desires not sacrifice, but to bring sinners to repentance. He is quoting Hosea 6. And Hosea 6 goes directly into this topic head on. He tells you plain as day he isn't about the sacrifice, he is about the understanding(required to bring sinners to repentance).

I mean, if you want to liken the blood and flesh of Jesus into being the role of wisdom giving understanding, and him giving his life to others in this manner so they too can have that wisdom and understanding, then I can find agreement in that. And when you bring up the verses in reference to his blood and flesh etc and the eating of it, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what it symbolizes.

In the last super scene that was quoted, they are eating bread and drinking wine, and Jesus says that the bread is his flesh and the wine is his blood. He is making specific and direct mentions towards Proverbs 9, to say this is what these things represent.

But that isn't how it's being used by Christianity. Instead, it becomes all about the sacrifice instead of the understanding. The blood and flesh no longer represent the bread and wine, which represent wisdom giving people understanding as Jesus did etc. Instead, it becomes end of the law, just believe in the sacrifice and you are saved, no matter what Jesus might have actually said.

I showed you where the last super was in the OT. I showed you how it is wisdom and understanding that guide the path. I showed you how Jesus is representing wisdom in the last super scene. I showed you the true meaning behind what he is saying there. I showed you how this understanding and wisdom he is given is needed to keep the commandments. I showed you where he gives the understanding directly in the 2 commandments.

What more do you need?

Honestly, while I find the worshiping of the death of truth a bit backwards, it's really not that big of a deal if you believe that. But, believe this - at the end of the day, you had better keep the commandments and keep them properly(means being like Jesus). It's that the sacrifice is used as a way of telling people they are ok even if they don't keep the commandments that bugs me so much.

Also, we haven't even gotten into how the sacrifice could have not paid the price for sins because of the 2 births and 2 deaths with spirit and flesh. Where as all people die in the flesh, and the price for sins is death of the soul. That Jesus is risen shows that he did not die the 2nd death, which means he couldn't have paid that price for you in the manner Christianity teaches it. As if his death in the physical is to represent the price for sins, then it's still a price we all pay - otherwise nobody has ever believed.

But if you realize it's not about the sacrifice, then you see that him being risen shows that he was sin-free and walked the path etc. This means that he was right/true in what he said and did and is a valid example for people to follow. And that those who believe in it - truly believe, will follow and walk in that example and they too would be risen. And it is in this manner that he "saves people". It is in this manner in which he gave his life for others, so that they could live. Because it was not something he had to do, he could have followed the commandments quietly, and went about his business. But he did it to show people.

Really not sure what else I can say to show you. I mentioned Genesis and the fall, and not keeping of the way, and I showed you the way back and the rise. But still you wish to believe in ritual blood sacrifices over these things.

All those things mentioned can be true, but they aren't true in the context of Christianity.



Proverbs 9

4Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
I'd venture to say, the lessons you attend is following after some of these theses.

I strongly recommend that if you are in such, you need to listen to what the Spirit says to the church of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3.


I have never heard of the guy, although I certainly did agree with some of the points made. Let me tell you a little history here.

I am a former atheist/agnostic. About 3 years ago I had a vision and meet the father. After that it was followed by about a month or so of gaining heavy understanding about things in general.

From this vision immediately I understood the commandments. Leading up to the vision I was more into politics, and I could see the evil in this world and so forth. I wondered why it was this way, for what reason/purpose does it serve and so on. I wondered how people could live among each other in true peace and freedom. I didn't know it at the time, but I was actually seeking for the way. And that is when I got that answer etc.

I was shown the understanding behind the commandments right off and immediately. I was also made to know the father/god was within me, and within all. I knew what was spirit was spirit, and what was flesh was flesh.

It wasn't until 3 months later that I came across John 14:20. I was basically in shock that Jesus said that. Because this is not what I had been told in Christian churches. Nothing close to the sort in fact. I was taught blood sacrifice, believe he died on the cross for your sins, and that being a good christian meant you had a necklace with a cross on it(basically).

And so the more I read of Jesus, the more I was floored. I do not accept Jesus or some promise from god because it is in a book as you do. When I read Jesus, I see the father within him. Meaning, when I read the words of Jesus I see the understanding that the father gives, and I know it is true.

But all of this is basically stomped on by Christians, and instead the sacrifice and such is chosen, over knowledge of the holy, over finding the father, over following the commandments and so forth.



They come to pervert the gospel of Christ, and substitute for it one that replaces the longstanding truths of sin and redemption with inclusiveness,
relativism, universal salvation, and/or a complete release from accountability.


Actually, this is what Christianity does. As I am very specific in saying that nothing less than you keeping the commandments will do. What I am saying is not being rejected because it is easier or whatever, but instead because it is harder. So much harder that you and your religion believe it's not even possible, and it not being possible is the entire reason why you have the "complete release from accountability".

I speak of the narrow gate, so this little attack isn't going to work. I speak of the gate in which the rich man can not go in, and yet the gate the church speaks of welcomes that rich man as is. The entire sacrifice of Jesus over knowledge and understanding and keeping the commandments is a complete release from accountability. As even Paul calls it a free gift.

Which only goes to highlight why Matthew 7 was basically written directly to Christianity.



Instead of man being inherently sinful and evil, he is inherently good and ignorant. There is no condemnation, therefore no need for divine salvation, and thus no need for the flesh or blood of Christ.


Was Adam not good in the eyes of god before he ate from the tree of knowledge?

And again, you aren't going to be able to use this "loose path" routine that Christians like to use when denouncing others. Where have I said in any manner that you do not have to keep the commandments?



I'll close with the following. Those that understand what I speak, should take great comfort in the following.


They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.


I'll leave you with this.




Matthew 5

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


See it?



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I was reading part of Baruch Halpern's book on David today and he says that David took on Goliath in order to take vengeance on Goliath's slander against God's alignments. What? An alignment, well what does that mean, and how could one connect this concept to something else, let's say, Jesus? Taking my earlier example of the brass serpent, I could ask, what is the alignment there. The serpent is aligned with Moses, so that those who see it, the alignment, are immune to the toxin. How about Jesus, what is his alignment, as he is on the cross? Paul asks, "Where, O death, is your sting?” The toxin is death, and the antidote is that God has an alignment with death, and through Jesus, exhibits His mastery over it. “Where, O death, is your victory?”



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Hi JM Dewey--

What makes you think DAVID slew Goliath? Have you ever heard of Elhanan in 2 sam 21:19 ?

'And there was a battle with the Philistinim at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

I Chronicles 20:5 tries to fix this contradiction with 1 Sam 17:50 (which states that David Did the Deed_ -- comparing Samuel/Kings with Chronicles shows how the author of Chronicles often tries to tidy up the history from his own post-exilic rosy coloured lenses and often ends up with some very elaborate 're-writes of tradition' / history and legend) by saying that Elhanan the Bethlehemite murdered Goliath's BROTHER...

But we are clearly dealing with doctored texts here and not facts. Presumably when David worked his way into Saul's family into the clan-chiefdom, he was careful to make sure he was the hero of the story--as many clan-chiefs were wont to do, even to-day if they have the power of the press / scribes in their hands...

Be aware of these things...please.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


He seems to be implying that David benefited from the Jerusalem tradition and kind of co-opted it as his own, as a sort of fusion, to gain power and stability for his dynasty. My opinion is that during this process it would have been counterproductive to kill off the entire priesthood of the underlying Canaanite religion, whatever that may have been.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Been looking for new sources of information. When I get close though posters get banned. Not just this forum either.

My current theory is that the Torah, at least Exodus-Deuteronomy did not exist until circa 700 BC. The Law of Moses itself created the nation of Israel out of an assortment of peoples already in the land; Caananites, Hittites, Jebusites, etc. Without the Law there would have been no Israel. Without the Law there would have been no YHWH.

I used to think that the Story of Ruth was written as a counter against Ezra's regime of purging out the 'foreigners'. Now I'm thinking that it was written as an excuse to remove rulership from David's line (because of Moabite lineage) and transfer to Aaronic priesthood. (Zech 6:12,13).

As proof that the Law can and does create a distinct and separate people out of miscellaneous peoples I offer the Khazars, the origin of some 80-90% of Indo-Europeans claiming Jewish heritage. This was not a matter of blood heritage but a matter of commitment to the Law and the YHWH of the Law.

The Law demands distinction, through different diet, different clothing, different prayers, different name for god, different Sabbath based on different creation story, different facial hair style. To not be different is to not be YHWH's people. You are cut off. Any one continuing to sing the praises of the Law without reading the Law is being foolish. Foolishness is not Wisdom.

How does Saul/Paul figure in? The One he calls God and Father of Jesus Christ is not YHWH of the Law. Plain and simple. While Saul the Pharisee was in the territory YHWH claimed as his exclusive territory, he was required by the Law to kill, that's the plain truth. Required to kill. Required to kill. Do I need to say it again? Saul was required by the Law to kill!

If this is not clear to you(plural) then you haven't read the Law.

My advice to any one not wanting to kill, and at the same time follow the Law, Stay out of the Land of Israel! YHWH is only a territorial god. Stay out of his territory and he can't force you to kill. Stay in exile! If you happen to be in Palestine now, Get out!

Can I be any more plain?

This isn't directed to you personally but to any who want to follow the Law.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by pthena]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized


In summary for those watching and reading, as prophesied by the New Testament authors, false prophets and false Christs are appearing in rapidly increasing numbers these days.

They come to pervert the gospel of Christ, and substitute for it one that replaces the longstanding truths of sin and redemption with inclusiveness, relativism, universal salvation, and/or a complete release from accountability. Instead of man being inherently sinful and evil, he is inherently good and ignorant. There is no condemnation, therefore no need for divine salvation, and thus no need for the flesh or blood of Christ.

As one of the false christs I give you my blessing. God has called some to literal scripture, you may be such a one. For as Jesus said, the Law and the Prophets will remain, so I say the whole Christian Bible will remain until heaven and earth pass away.

By their fruits they are known. Please watch carefully, and keep yourself clear from evil fruits of neglecting the poor, or starting wars, or cutting people off from love, joy, or peace. Watch closely for there are false teachers who claim to believe all that you believe and yet also teach hate and war and killing. Be careful, and only kill those who Jesus told to kill, which as far as I can tell was no one.

If eating bread and drinking wine(even unfermented for some) is participation in the flesh and blood of Christ, then shouldn't you consider some your fellow participant's in Christ even if they seem to be false? Just a question for consideration.



[edit on 4-2-2010 by pthena]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

Be aware of these things...please.
That's why I bought the definitive book on David. Halpern discusses all those issues that you brought up. In the end, according to him, none of that stuff matters because the story serves to describe David's character, whether he actually did it himself, or not.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
"The reform of King Josiah and the composition of the deuteronomistic history" is something you can check out on Google books, where you can read quite a bit of it. The book itself is hard to find and very expensive. If you look hard, you can find a good review of it by Halpern, who thinks people should read it and be inspired to carry on the work.
The work is analysing the history in the Old Testament and figuring out when different parts may have been written or edited.
Tigay, Cross, van der Toorn, Beyerlin, von Rad, are all good authors to read on the subject. I'm starting to think I might have to start reading in German. I know you studied German a long time ago, because most serious theological works are written in German. I am starting to find out that seems to be true.
"Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions" is not the latest thing, but I find it amusing how he takes the stories into fine pieces and explains how you can tell how they fitted together differently at one time and how you can tell which source is responsible.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
Is Halpern a reliable source in your opinion? I don't know if I can go all the way back? The German program at college got cut off at my college after only one semester. I actually wanted to learn German to read some of those books that never got translated into English.

It looks like Sigismundus won't be satisfied unless we are fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and any other language the source material appears in. This seems a rather large burden.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
I am not sure what you mean by reliable. He is someone who is on top of things and is well respected in his field. Part of my approach to picking authors is to see who is being quoted and referenced in the more academic type works. There are certain people who stand out as genius types, and everyone else falls into the various camps who support those few.
I was reading the introduction to one of my Hebrew lexicons and the author was making a slightly sarcastic comment about how some students are put off by all the German. He said if you are trying to learn Hebrew, German should be really pretty simple for you.



[edit on 4-2-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


I am not sure what you mean by reliable. He is someone who is on top of things and is well respected in his field. Part of my approach to picking authors is to see who is being quoted and referenced in the more academic type works. There are certain people who stand out as genius types, and everyone else falls into the various camps who support those few.

I'm not sure what I mean either. I'm tossed about by every wind of doctrine. That's what I get for having butterfly as a totem! But seriously, I used to have a study Bible that had Metzger for general editor. It was so good that I gave it away, because it would help some one else. I also had an excellent Bible dictionary that could help some one else. And Bible commentaries. I don't think I can rebuild any decent library or find the time to read it all. I wish I could find a nice condensed version for distracted English only readers.

I started reading The reform of King Josiah and the composition of the deuteronomistic history By Erik Eynikel. The scholarship has expanded much since 1970s. 18 volumes mentioned on 2Kings 22&23 alone.



I was reading the introduction to one of my Hebrew lexicons and the author was making a slightly sarcastic comment about how some students are put off by all the German. He said if you are trying to learn Hebrew, German should be really pretty simple for you.

I didn't get far at all with Hebrew. I sold all my Greek and Hebrew materials for decent money one time when I was moving into a car. I don't think I've got the kind of energy required for renewing language studies.

Oh, for a condensed version in English! That's one of the beauties of the Not Authorized approach.



[edit on 4-2-2010 by pthena]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join