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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


Sacrifice of the truth is needed in order for the lie to live. The lie will live and flourish until the truth returns. In the light of truth, the lie hasn't a chance, so only by killing/manipulating/covering it up and so forth can the lie live.

By telling people that, instead of what Jesus said which is to keep the commandments, walk the path and so forth it enables people to not do those things. It also takes away the importance of understanding those things and so forth.

I operate on the assumption that Paul was very much like myself, that he was making an honest attempt at presenting a message for Gentiles that didn't involve the Law. I sympathize with that attempt. A basic understanding of ethics and good behavior can be taught without resorting to the Old Testament. I can't see any reason to mention it to Gentiles. So I sympathize with his opposition to the Judaizers who were attempting to make Gentiles subject to the Law.



Imagine if instead of Christianity being based on the blood sacrifice, it was instead based on following the example of Jesus and keeping the commandments. Would it not be something completely different?

Indeed, I can imagine. I would assume the uniqueness of Jesus. Evidenced by the rapid spread of his name throughout the Diaspora. In fact just about every newly forming religion wanted to have a claim on him; the mystery religions, the forming Gnostic religions. That time period, up to about AD200 was a very creative period for religions, and they all wanted to include Jesus in a central role. That's how truly astounding this man really was.

Just in the New Testament we have, I can detect several forms of Christianity; Matthew, John, Paul, Hebrews, James, Revelation. There were other forms that were lost. Each is a bit different from the others. Paul and Gospel of John seem to be most applicable to Gentiles. John wasn't even written though until about 30 yrs after Paul was executed. Each of these forms was an attempt to understand Jesus and the Father. An attempt that falls short of perfectly explaining.

To me Jesus didn't just explain the Law, he ascended above the Law that was given through angels. He ascended all the way to the Father and brought back the Law of Love. The truth that the Father was in him and he in the Father. And the Father can be in us. And we can all be One. There is no person or group of people who must be killed in order for any one else to be more pure. The other man or woman or child is loved just as much as you are, and it is our God given duty to help and stand by the poor and oppressed and the cast off even as far as civil disobedience against the laws of man. This was all there present in the sayings of Jesus.

But the last day didn't come in that generation. It wasn't until that generation had passed that the sayings of Jesus were collected and written down. I believe what pasttheclouds has to say on the matter. Just as much as the Law came as blessing and curse so also the message went to the Gentiles as blessing and curse, truth and lie; it's the gift from the Father, or the Holy Spirit that gives understanding to discern the truth from the mixture of written words. So maybe Paul had no choice but to write the stuff he wrote in his time. Did the angel who talked to Moses have any more choice?

The writings aren't going to disappear just because the literal written words are veiled to the literal minded readers, just as the command to kill sabbath breakers is going to disappear just because we know that no amount of killing of 'sinners' will ever make us any more holy. See, if part of the Book is literally wrong than it all could be.

I'm a Pagan shaman. What I need is the World Tree, that reaches from the underworld all the way to heaven.


JN 1:50 Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51 He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

Nebuchadnezzar the Gentile emperor of Babylon was a World Tree once upon a time. Daniel 4. His experience is a prophecy for Gentiles just as much as the tent of meeting was for the Israelites, probably more so. The tree was cut down and banded. Nebuchadnezzar became an ignorant beast until he was restored to sanity.

We are in the time of ignorance and strong delusion. Worldly political power hungry religions based on ignorant literal use of the very same scriptures used by those who know. Remember that when Jesus was tempted by the devil it was scripture the devil used to tempt and scripture Jesus used to counter the temptation. So it is today.

I'd like to have people free of the bondage of literal Paul just as much as he wanted Gentiles free of literal Law. I think that's what I'm working at.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by pthena]




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
I operate on the assumption that Paul was very much like myself, that he was making an honest attempt at presenting a message for Gentiles that didn't involve the Law. I sympathize with that attempt. A basic understanding of ethics and good behavior can be taught without resorting to the Old Testament. I can't see any reason to mention it to Gentiles. So I sympathize with his opposition to the Judaizers who were attempting to make Gentiles subject to the Law.


But is there really any evidence to support that? Does that determine what is right or wrong, true or false?

If a man tells you to go play in the middle of the street during rush hour, does it then matter if he had good intentions or not? Isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions?

The law is STILL VALID. Always has been, always will be. All that changes with Jesus is rather than being given the law in written form, the understanding itself behind the laws are given. But yet that understanding in itself means to follow the laws.

The problem with the Pharisees was not the law. Jesus says - do what they say, but not as they do. The problem is that they used the laws as a burden on people, as a means of judging/persecuting people for political reasons, not to mention the addition of laws which are not of god being treated as if it is of god. The understanding Jesus/father/holy spirit gives not only will show people the laws and why they should be followed, but the understanding also will show people what is of god and what is not.

On top of this, the Pharisees carried out the vengeance as if they were god.

This is no different than with understanding you will be able to know that 1+1=2 is true, and 4+2=9 is false. But this understanding in no manner changes the fact that 1+1=2 or that the laws are to be followed.

If a person doesn't know and understand - then what are they doing trying to do such things?

I can defend Paul the person on many levels. But there is no defense on what we know as Paul today based on the writings that were selected. If those particular texts are an accurate reflection of Paul is unknown. All we have to base these things on are his writings that were selected - and those are not true.

If you have some desire for the end of the law, or to be above the law - then I have nothing for you.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Sigismundus

The question remains: If Paul was creating a religion for Gentiles, why does he include blood sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness of sins? Wouldn't he have been better off just ignoring blood sacrifice? He could have, but he didn't. So he is still relevant to the blood sacrifice debate.


Mainly because scholars, and in fact, most who reject Paul, do not realize two fundamental principals. The shedding of innocent blood to cover sins was BEFORE Judaism, and the first Jew was not until long after the Garden and flood.

1.) Blood Sacrifice was ordained in the Garden of Eden to the Gentiles. Unless you read Genesis 3:21 very slowly and carefully you will miss it.


Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Where did the Coat of Skins come from? What did he do with them? The lesson, only by the Shedding of Innocent blood can you be covered.

It was a Gospel Message right there, in Genesis 3, right after the Messiah is pronounced -- the seed of the woman.

They tried to approach God in their own righteousness, wearing works made by their own hand -- fig leaves.

Also in case you missed the whole thing, the story repeats itself as that was what Cain and Abel were all about. One offered the works of his hands and came in his own righteousness, the other offered a sacrifice of faith by offering a Lamb.

Lamb.. blood, sacrifice. Works unaccepted, yet Faith is. The sounds awfully familiar to those with fundamental background, yet it's in Genesis from the Garden, and subsequently proper, it is there ripe for the taking.

2.) Adam and Eve were NOT Jewish. They are classified as Gentiles under the Mosaic law.

The Nation of Israel was in Abraham's seed. Abraham by contrast was the first Jew.

Abraham was a pagan gentile, living among other pagan gentiles before he was called out. And even then, he took his sweet time to do so.

Thru Israel the Messiah came, and God that line through his people.

But the Messiah was promised to Adam and Eve, thus it was to Humanity, and not just to Israel.


I had a brush with the 'Fundamental Christian God' and his message seems to be "forget rational thought and believe." He's a fairly strong character, not easily ignored. Took me a few days to recover.


He is not easily ignored because he is the LORD of LORDS and King of Kings. He is the Most High, The Mighty God, the Holy One of Israel.

Every knee will bow one day, believers and non, and will profess that very above statement.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Hi Not Authorised -

Actually my question was more fundamental.

Since this Saul of Tarsus personage, a Greek speaking Diaspora Jew born in Cilicia (the capitol of Roman MITHRAISM with all of its concomitant blood-bath life-giving 'pagan' theology) really after all did NOT meet R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir 'in the flesh' as did the disciples who DID meet and learn from him directly (with whom he fought bitterly, see Galatians chapter 2 - 'those so-called Pillars of the Church' !) but only in dreams and visionss, despite his hysterical claims of 'Apostleship' [and in view of the fact that he was moreover widely regared as a 'heretic' by Nazorean Aramaic speaking 'Messianists' ('Christians') e.g. the Ebionim in view of his allowance of uncircumcised nonKashrut eating goyim into the fold ] -why should 'Christians' (especially to-day) ignore the purported words of the greek-speaking 'Iesous' in the 1st canonical Greek Gospel which clearly states the man had no gentile mission ('But go not into any of the cities of the goyim, but preach ye the kingdom of Heaven to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel ONLY') and follow the warped teachings of a foreign upstart who was too concious of his own self-importantce to even think about what he was actually claiming 'in the name of Iesous' whom he really knew nothing about first hand?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


But is there really any evidence to support that? Does that determine what is right or wrong, true or false?

If a man tells you to go play in the middle of the street during rush hour, does it then matter if he had good intentions or not? Isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions?

I assume also that you have good intentions while praising the Law. The evidence is in your writings. You still haven't shown that you have actually read the Law. Here's an example:


EX 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

EX 32:27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: `Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

This was after the Two Tablets of Testimony were given to Moses, and the people had sacrificed to the golden calf provided by Aaron. Does it say in the Law anything about being only spiritually interpreted? Does the Law say, "don't really do genocide on tribes, don't really destroy their places of worship, don't really kill your friends and neighbors who violate the literal Law?" Quite the contrary; it's always do this, don't do that, if some one does this it pollutes the land with sin, you must kill this person so the land will be clean.

Then the prophets come along and say "because you didn't kill these people and erase all evidence of their existence and the names of their gods the LORD is bringing a great army against you to kill you and exile you away from this land you allowed to be polluted by not killing the sinners." Quite literally this is the Law and the Prophets. You may say, "but I have understanding, therefore I know which parts are valid still and which are not. I'm not going to kill any one." Haven't you heard that if you violate one of the laws you are in violation of the whole Law?

It's quite evident to any one who actually reads the Law, that it was given to a particular nation for the purpose of being followed as a matter of civil law. There are deluded religious leaders calling themselves Christian who see it as their god given duty to take the Law as civil law in the United States. I know you don't support these people. Why not? If Sabbath breaking and "sexual perversion", and failing to banish all other forms of worship than exclusive worship of YHWH can pollute one nation and bring his curse, wouldn't it also apply to all nations if indeed YHWH is the god of the whole earth? Check this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quite frankly I deny the claim of YHWH. He is only a god, and there are many gods. These gods have a spark of the One True God of All. I have that spark too. In Him we are One. Does that statement make me a blasphemer according to the Law? Absolutely! Is there any law of the Law I haven't violated? No! The Law stands today and until the last day as my accuser. I accuse the Law too. Accuser = Satan. So I and the Law are Satan together as we wrestle and strive. This will continue until the Last Day, and God will decide between us.





[edit on 9-2-2010 by pthena]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized


He is not easily ignored because he is the LORD of LORDS and King of Kings. He is the Most High, The Mighty God, the Holy One of Israel.

Every knee will bow one day, believers and non, and will profess that very above statement.

Yes, indeed it is so; but this applies to the true God who is One, not to deluded and deluding gods. The false gods will submit eventually. Many gods have submitted already. There are some who haven't yet. They are the ignorant ones.

The Orthodox Fundamentalist Christian god of trinity is the strongest I've encountered so far. Allow me to explain since you accept the whole Canon of scripture. Flat out, the Old Testament YHWH, Lawgiver is not the one Jesus called God and Father. To say he is, and is part of the trinity is to create a false god.

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." This magnetic Jesus has been captured into this false trinity. His power of attraction is being used against him and his Father. I will wrestle this false god too, and get Jesus away from him. Trinity? God Who Is One is much more than a trinity.

I think you misunderstood my previous remark about eating bread and drinking wine. What I meant was that we all as humans living our lives have the very body and blood of Jesus in us, for the human family is one under God. If it is so on a natural earthly way, how much more is it true in the Spirit! Since I don't see any body else taking up the mantle of Paul, I will do it myself.


COL 1:24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- 26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Not Authorised


Hi Sig,

I wrote about Paul possibly meeting Christ in an earlier post on this thread, but in summary, the chances of Saul and Yehoshua not meeting at least once, would have been pretty much near impossible.


Since this Saul of Tarsus personage, a Greek speaking ..


I have no problem with Mithra-ism being a corruption of the truth. Satan, being the father of all lies, I would expect such things. He would do everything in his power to lay a minefield for those that would believe. Mithra-ism is just another one of his ways to pervert the truth.


see Galatians chapter 2 - 'those so-called Pillars of the Church' !) but only in dreams and visionss, despite his hysterical claims of 'Apostleship'


I'm not sure what version of Galatians you are reading, but it wasn't a derogatory statement in the one I read. This often comes up by those that reject Paul, as if Paul is mocking the Council at Jerusalem.

I even read once that Paul threatened the churches with physical abuse by someone who has replaced Paul with herself. I got a giggle out of it, until I realized how many people's walks have been derailed in their faith, or people outright never hearing the gospel and rejecting it because of those words.


and in view of the fact that he was moreover widely regared as a 'heretic' by Nazorean Aramaic speaking 'Messianists' ('Christians') e.g. the Ebionim ...


IE the Ebionites that rejected Paul with scorn, and thus 'Pauline Christianity.' The Infamous Question, as to if the Church does not have to become Jewish, what then happens to the Jews as put in Acts. Even 20 years later, before Paul returns to the temple, that very question is STILL simmering on the front burner.

Problem is that Peter, and not Paul was the first to preach to the Gentiles. Paul came later. This question was asked the moment Peter opened that door, and the Holy Spirit accepted them -- as is.

Look, I want to lay some groundwork here. I respect the Jewish traditions, law, and culture. I find it a travesty that the Church has replaced herself with Israel. In that someway, that God has divorced Israel and replaced it with the Church. That is heresy 101 and is not what Paul, nor the Apostles, nor the earliest church founders taught.

We're lucky we even get the table scraps, and as Gentiles, we should realize this.

The Holocaust itself, can be laid directly at the feet of the silent pulpits in Germany, who not only did not defend the Jews, but condoned their murder by silence.

Paul himself makes a passionate plea for us to understand that the Role of Israel and her people is FAR from over in Romans 9, 10 and 11.

As for Paul being a Heretic, We can flip this over as well, as by the Christian communities, the Ebonites were the ones regarded as the Heretics as they largely rejected Christs' pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Muhammad drew upon the beliefs of the Ebonites, and Islam is really a continuation (with some alterations) of their belief system. The arguments you present are also the main arguments that Islam uses to bring Jesus under the Ebonite view, and reject Pauline Christianity.

So yes, I'm aware of the historical roots, and I am also aware of a recent resurgence of this sect in modern day. It is spoken of clearly in the Christian Bible and was one of the struggles for the early church.

I'm also assuming you are speaking of the Aramaic version of Matthew, or otherwise known as the Gospel According to the Hebrews? I'm surprised you didn't whip out the parody saying that the Gentiles being preached the Gospel are the Abomination that causes Desolation. Or are you speaking of the "Gospel of 'Q'" source document, which no copies (if it even existed) still exist today.

So, I'll assume the Aramaic Matthew version. The first question is, where is this Gospel today?

According to Epiphanius, he claimed that the Ebionites only possessed an incomplete, falsified and truncated copy. (Panarion 29, 9). What's more cumbersome is that very few of the Ebionite writings still remain. It has to be pieced together from Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, Epiphanius, Symmachus and other historical documents.


why should 'Christians' (especially to-day) ignore the purported words of the greek-speaking 'Iesous' in the 1st canonical Greek Gospel ...


Today, we only have a few quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews scattered throughout historical records of the early church. And unless my news source is outdated, there still is no full copy of the text to even check it's veracity or accuracy. If there's no full copy of the text, then how do you know the message in it is accurate?

Even so, I've read that the original, and I mean first copies, of the text, probably where in Hebrew (Minus Luke) -- not Aramaic. This is inferred by the text structure. However Paul's epistles and Luke's Gospel, written to the Gentiles were probably sourced in Greek. It can also be inferred to be the same in Revelation, in which the Gentile passages (Churches) are in Greek, yet chapters 4-20 are in Hebrew. This is assumed from structure of the text is written.

Much like the OT, particularly Daniel, where Jewish focused chapters are written in Hebrew, and Gentile focused are written in Aramaic.

But if the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew is what you're speaking of, isn't that an extraordinary large assumption considering we only have fragments of it in various sources?

Or is it because God promised his word would stand forever, and we still have a continuation of those texts today known as the Christian Bible, yet the Ebonite version and beliefs somehow has vanished from history and was absorbed into the most Anti-Christ religion of the world?


and follow the warped teachings of a foreign upstart who was too concious ...?


That is between you and the Holy Spirit Sig, not me. Personally I believe Saul knew Christ in person, and was on the receiving end of Christ's rebukes. I can't prove that scripturally, so I do not expect you to accept it as true.

That's just food for thought you can chew over in your spare time.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Hi Not Authorised—

You seem a bit confused by my post, so I will try and elucidate a little. For one thing you seem to think I made a reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews, which I do not. The Aramaic substrata underlying the much later canonical Greek gospels is virtually lost, and all we have today are bad Greek translations of Aramaic phrases and ideas that have shifted their originally much more politically charged meaning in the process. But this is a discussion for another thread it seems.

As far as Saul of Tarsus’ relation to the Ebionim and Nazoreans which he calls ‘the party of the Circumcision’ with some disdain, I take it you are not fluent in Koine Greek and cannot see the irony in the language being used in Galatians 2:9-13? You claim not be to able to pick it up:

καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, ἰάκωβος καὶ κηφᾶς καὶ ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν· μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν κηφᾶς εἰς ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῶ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῶ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει

“When they recognized the endowment (for office) bestowed upon me, Yakkov and Kephah and Yohanon, who make themselves out to be ‘Pillars’, gave Barnabbas and myself their right hands in partnership that (in a nutshell) we should go to the goyim and they would go to those of the Circumcision Party—but only that we should be very careful of the Ebionim, and I had agreed to it. But when Kephah came to Antioch, I told him off to his face because he was clearly in the wrong --since he always used to eat with the goyim, that is until some of Yakkov’s people walked in-- but when he saw them he immediately separated himself from them because he was scared of those within the Circumcision-Party – And the rest of the Judaeans also began to act like hypocrites with him, so that even Barnabbas started to be carried away by his hypocrisy and do the same thing…”.

Saul’s Greek is snide and clearly betrays the rift between the Aramaic speaking Ebionim/Nazoreans (who knew Iesous in the flesh) and the Pauline Greek speakers (who did not).

Saul was born in Cilicia (Tarsus, the Cilician capitol was the point at which the cult of the Persian sun god Mitra (‘the Saviour and Redeemer of Mankind;’’The Intercessor between the gods and Men’,etc.) was introduced into Rome by Tarsian Pirates in 79BCE under the name Mithras.
Persian (Zoroastrian) ideas had been imported into Judaea since they had invaded Palestine in 531 BCE and remained for 200 years until Syrian Greeks occupied the land—

Thus ideas of Satan, Angels, Daemons, and the Resurrection o the Dead and the last Judgment were all Persian Ideas that were not endemic to earlier forms of Judaism ‘before the Exile’ (e.g. ‘I am YHWH I create the good, I create the evil’ before the advent of “Shaitan” (satan) – the character of The Adversary.

To call the Persian Mysteries of Mithras (which was introduced into the Roman Empire 100 years before Christianity was introduced) as ‘satan’ is non-sensical. You might as well say ‘Mozart is Satan’ because he wrote the German Singspiel Die ZauberFLoete which uses Mithraic imagery among so many other ‘paganisms’. Thoughts along those lines have no place in this present discussion.

We do NOT know what type of ‘goyim’ to whom Kephah preached the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven.

They could have been ‘the Elect of the House of Yisro’el scattered among the goyim’ i.e. synagogue worshippers in the Diaspora – since one of the many Roles of the Messiah was the Ingathering of the (Jewish) Exiles – i.e. the Lost Sheep to be herded back to Jerusalem in the Last Days (Is 62:10, 66:19-22 &tc.) or they could have been the uncircumcised gentile ‘god-fearers’ who attended Synagogue services in the back (separated by a rope from Those of the Circumcision) who were treated as proselytes or at the very least as half-Jews who spoke the same kind of language and knew the content of the Jewish scriptures and traditions &tc.

But to assume that Kephah (‘ho petros’) preached openly to plain ordinary goyim (‘regular heathen’) is ludicrous since they would have have no points in common and would not have understood a word he said (literally and figuratively) with or without an interpreter.

So to say “the problem is that Peter and not Paul was the first to preach to the Gentiles’ is a gross over-simplification of the facts.

Also many goyim reading your thread might well be insulted to be referred to as scrap eating dogs under the table licking the breaded discards of the chidren of the kingdom as outlined in the 1st canonical Greek Gospel (‘Matthew’ whoever he was - chapter 15:26-27 (Lady the Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisrael, and anyway since when is it right to take the children’s bread out of their mouths and throw it away on the dogs under the table?’ Yes, m’lord, but even dogs get to eat the scraps that fall from the children’s mouths…’

The Ebionim (‘the poor ones’) were clearly Messianic Jews some of whom regarded R. Yehsohua bar Yosef the Galilean as their Nazir who led the way for a Second Messiah who would, to put it bluntly, finish the job the first one did and failed to complete.

They were Aramaic speaking End of Days Torah Abiding Kashrut eating circumcised Messianists not unlike the Dead Sea Scroll Covenanters and were much closer to the ideas prevalent among the 12 disciples and Yakkov the brother of Yehoshua (Yakkov haTsaddiq = aka James the Just) who was not ‘one of the 12’ but took over as one of the Pillars after his brother’s execution for armed sedition against Rome in 36CE based on his Daviddic bloodline.

He would have been the leader of the Ebionim / Circumcision party that Paul hated – a man who knew his own brother in the flesh and was familiar with his teachings, however strange (the 2nd canonical Gospel ‘Mark’ whoever he was, writes in chapter 3:2: ‘and they seized him and began to take him away, saying, he is Insane.’)

That most Christians today are Pauline is simple: Paul’s Competition was killed off in the failed Jewish War in 66—an accident of history



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 






Originally posted by badmedia
I think I have issue with what it means to believe in Jesus. Is it a matter of believing in Jesus the person, or a matter of believing in that which Jesus does, shows and as such - is? A person, or what he represents and so forth? Because I see many people who believe in "Jesus", yet such things are well beyond them I can see.


Well, again I believe it has too be both, you have to believe Jesus is real/existed and you have to believe/follow what he represents.

I see what you are getting at, in terms of those people who just use Jesus name but don’t actually do what Jesus stands for and represents.

But…

If you don’t believe Jesus existed, then how do/can you view his death and resurrection?

Also, if you don’t believe Jesus was real, then how do you view, that he is prophesied (by Jesus himself) to return one day? How does that fit into your current belief or way of thinking?



Originally posted by badmedia
Is it a matter of believing in Jesus the person, or a matter of believing in that which Jesus does, shows and as such - is


Jesus was prophesized about in the old testament, he is referred to as the first born of all creation, he tells us that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, regardless of how you view his death, he showed us that death is not real through his resurrection and he now sits at the right hand of God the Father. If you don’t believe Jesus is a real person that existed and still exists, then don’t all these things become empty?


- JC


[edit on 9-2-2010 by Joecroft]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


But that isn't the law. This is part of what Jesus did, he showed what is truly the commandments of god, and what isn't. Kind of like where the Pharisees say Jesus is breaking the laws, but he says/shows that he isn't breaking them - that they do not understand them. How did Jesus know? Because he understood them and the spirit/reason behind them. And so he questions them basically on common sense.

The commandments of god and all the written laws of the OT are 2 different things. If you are to mean that the laws were as the pharisees and scribes taught them, then you are not really talking about the law. You are instead talking about the manipulated law or laws of men.

Also, why do we treat Yahweh and such as names? Do those names not have meaning behind them? I mean what is the father really has no name, and that name Yahweh means things such as "to be", or "I am". It is that which gives all things consciousness/life. Without the father within us, things we take for granted such as being aware, able to observe and even understand would be impossible. Without it, we are as dead as the ground our flesh comes from.

Consciousness/spirit/soul creates logic. It is that which is beyond the creation. Creation is made by "the word". The word is logic in this manner. The laws of physics and such based on logic being "run/applied". But this creation does not come alive until the consciousness/spirit/soul is there to observe and be etc.

In genesis, this is expressed as creation is made, and the spirit of the Yahweh(to be etc) descends into creation and brings it to life. Each "individual" merely a carnation of the father. A "soul" is your individuality within the father. Without the soul, you and thus your individuality is gone/dead. "You" cease to exist.

It's not just in you, it is in all those who have souls. And knowing this, does that not in itself change what it means to love god and such things? And I am not talking about only loving self, which is to only love that within you, but towards all - as again it is in all.

How is it then blasphemy in terms of the OT? Didn't Jesus show the error in how that was being seen/treated/understood by men? He quotes Psalms 82. So, if you say that such things are against the law, then are you not in fact saying at the same time that the Pharisees and scribes were right about the law, rather than Jesus? And wouldn't that in itself mean that Jesus was not sin free? Yet the entire point of being risen is that he was sin-free.

Because the father is within all, if you break a commandment, then you are committing that sin against god and against the father within them. It is also for this reason that Jesus says to love one another as yourself in terms of how to treat others etc. The commandments are ALL focused in this manner, and that is why Jesus gives you the understanding behind it in the 2 basic commandments to follow.

So, I guess it's a matter of if you believe the scribes to be the authority and if the way of the Pharisees was correct. While I do believe in keeping the law, I don't believe they knew the first thing about how to do that, and as far as writing the bible and such - big deal IMO. Writing it down doesn't make one the authority.







[edit on 2/10/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
Well, again I believe it has too be both, you have to believe Jesus is real/existed and you have to believe/follow what he represents.

I see what you are getting at, in terms of those people who just use Jesus name but don’t actually do what Jesus stands for and represents.

But…

If you don’t believe Jesus existed, then how do/can you view his death and resurrection?

Also, if you don’t believe Jesus was real, then how do you view, that he is prophesied (by Jesus himself) to return one day? How does that fit into your current belief or way of thinking?

Jesus was prophesized about in the old testament, he is referred to as the first born of all creation, he tells us that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, regardless of how you view his death, he showed us that death is not real through his resurrection and he now sits at the right hand of God the Father. If you don’t believe Jesus is a real person that existed and still exists, then don’t all these things become empty?


Hi, to me it is not important if Jesus was real or not. The father taught me not to focus on such things, that what they represent is that which is greater and the entire point of it.

Meaning, what makes Jesus is what he does, says, understands and shows, and it is that which is important, rather than the idol and so forth. But this was not Jesus specific because the father never once mentioned any such names to me. But at the same time I don't think it mere coincidence that I found his words shortly after.

So, even if you were to prove to me that the entire story of Jesus was faked, fairy tale and so on - it would not matter to me. Because regardless of that, that which makes him is that which is important, and either way that is still the truth, that is the still the light, and it is still the way.

I have no trouble or problem at all believing he existed. If he did not exist, then I know that in the very least someone had the understanding to do so, because they couldn't have written the story itself without that understanding. As someone has the understanding, I don't find it far fetched to believe someone did such. So, it's not really an issue for me if he existed or not - the point of it all is still true. The father within his words is real/true. What he says and does is still true.

My reason for accepting Jesus and what he says and such is much different than most peoples. When I listen to him, I hear the same understanding the father gives. I didn't get that understanding from the bible, I seen in repeated there. So the understanding for me was there before, and would thus still be there after. As such, it would have no effect whatsoever either way.

Plus, I really don't care about what happens after death. Even if you could prove to me that when we die that is the end, there is no heaven, no hell or whatever - I wouldn't care. Because once again all those things would still be true. Why would I want to live my life by anything other than what I know to be true?

Not sure about the prophecy stuff. I think prophecy is in many cases the result of common sense mixed in with a big of insight. One day it is inevitable that such a thing would happen. It has to eventually happen, if such types of things don't happen then mankind would basically be doomed.

Just like the truth will have to return and rule the world etc if mankind is ever to advance much further. When is that day going to come? I do not know - but it will have to eventually.

So it's not that I have a problem with those things, it's just that I think there is that which is greater/deeper that Jesus really represents which extends well beyond the limits of what we know/call "Jesus" from the bible. While I may not know if "Jesus" is real/true literally - I know for sure what he represents is. I have no problem believing it, I just do not know for fact it's true.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


But that isn't the law. This is part of what Jesus did, he showed what is truly the commandments of god, and what isn't... How did Jesus know? Because he understood them and the spirit/reason behind them.

The commandments of god and all the written laws of the OT are 2 different things. If you are to mean that the laws were as the pharisees and scribes taught them, then you are not really talking about the law. You are instead talking about the manipulated law or laws of men.

Then you understand that the Commandment of Love has always been from the beginning even before any book was ever written on stone, clay, papyrus, or vellum. And Jesus lived it and told it like it always has been.


Also, why do we treat Yahweh and such as names? Do those names not have meaning behind them? I mean what is the father really has no name, and that name Yahweh means things such as "to be", or "I am". It is that which gives all things consciousness/life.

I treat YHWH as a name because it's used as a name in the written book. We don't know the Name of God. He just IS. And to me the YHWH of the written book is a phantom/illusion with no real existence outside of the written book, existing in the imagination while reading the book.

For me God put Himself into what we call creation. He is the life force. As you say gives all things consciousness/life. He is not far away sitting on a throne, He's right here with us, feeling with us.


It's not just in you, it is in all those who have souls. And knowing this, does that not in itself change what it means to love god and such things? And I am not talking about only loving self, which is to only love that within you, but towards all - as again it is in all.

Absolutely. And I agree with everything else you say. God is One; in Him we live and breathe and have our being. Love is the supreme commandment. And merely talking about Jesus is of no value compared to living like Jesus.

Terms like Law throw me off. Because it's a technical term for the whole written Torah with all the killing required to be pure.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Hi again, Not Authorised—

Since I haven’t seen a response back from you yet, I’ll add some more comments to my earlier response --Unfortunatley, I had used up all the letter-space in my initial answer (I would have liked to have made it much longer since there are so many points to be made, but there are space limitations, apparently on ATS)

As I said, you seemed to have run off on a tangent with your assumptions about my referring to the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews which was apparently similar to some of the contents of what we read in the 1st Greek Canonical Gospel. When I speak of the Aramaic Gospel Substrate, I am speaking of the ORAL Gospel Transmissioin stage, which would have been the very earliest layer in the convoluted ‘Christian’ messaging that morphed over time in different places and by very different people with different agendas and religio-political motives.

Certainly all the ‘Gospel material’ we have (incl. ‘pseudipigraphical’ Gospels of ‘Peter’, ‘Thomas’ & ‘Phillip’ &tc. whoever wrote them – and including non-canonical Greek/Coptic gospels which did not get voted in at the councils as ‘Cleared to be READ in the churches..’) are based ( initially) on ORAL Aramaic substrata of various qualities & types in various places (passed along by various people/groups over time & subject to 'morphing' as it was transmitted via ORAL preaching)

When the ‘Second Coming’ (aka Parousia) of ‘the Lord Iesous’ never took place as advertised after the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome [66-72 CE, commencing at the 70th anniversary of the death of King Herod ‘the Great’ in 4 BCE in which nearly 1million Judaeans died, and the orig ‘Jesus movement’ were virtually killed off ), the original Torah-abiding Ebionim/Nazoreans headed by the Daviddic blood brothers of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. ‘Iesous’—first, James the ‘Just’ (Yakkov ha Tsaddiq, or ‘James the Righteous’ or ‘James the Priest’ who died just before the Revolt c. 62 CE, and later his brothers & Daviddic blood-kin] these oral Aramaic LOGIA began to get written down in various languages, mostly first in Greek and then from Greek into Coptic etc. In the process new ideas fitting a new political milieu were formulated and the original ‘highly politicized Aramaic sayings’ of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (& influenced by the Targum Midrashim of the OT and Apocrypha) were heavily watered down to be acceptable (since, after all, the Jews lost the War…) to be read ‘in the churches’

Most surviving Coptic documents show errors SPECIFICALLY FROM THE GREEK– and NOT from the Aramaic oral stage directly. But most Christian gospel material orig. derived from Aramaic sayings / teachings / midrash of the earliest disciples (the peeling away the several layers or over-painting (i.e. additions/editorial omissions/mss errors/ errors in translations fm Aramaic to Greek & fm Greek to Coptic / Latin etc.) over time by different individuals, including scribes in the later stages, is the life’s work of modern text critical scholarship)

[And speaking of text-scholarship, to be conversant in these matters you will have to learn the basics of Koine Greek to be able to READ THE TEXTS FOR YOURSELF (check out J.W. Wenham’s Elements of NT Greek, a good start for a beginner in his Quest to understand the ‘Bible’) in order to find out what actually is being meant by the words on the page:
You seem to be reliant on theologically-biased/squewed translations of Greek source material of some of “Paul’s statements attributed to him in the NT – this would warp your understanding of what actual words are being used in what order in what grammar & in what context, &tc.].

The results of this scholarly peeling away process (a study of c. the past 150 years) has shown that Pauline Christianity & the earlier Aramaic Kerygma proclamations of the earliest Churches (which were still Torah Abiding for at least 60 years after the death of the ‘Good Rebbe’) originally had some basic martyriological points in common (esp the Christology of the Martyr’s Death and the reward of the Martyrdom by the Placement at the Right hand of the Most High etc.) but quickly verged away from the Aramaic Torah Abiding Kahrut Circumcision ‘Jewishness ‘of the earliest teachings of Yehoshua & his brother ‘James’(some substrata are still preserved in the 1st Canonical Greek Gospel, ‘according to Matthew’ whoever he was) with the advent of the New Diaspora-Friendly Gospel of ‘Paul’, the Diaspora Jew who never met R. Yehoshua and who split off from and fought with the James’ Party of the Circumcision—which became more popular among Greek speaking Jews and Proselytes and God Fearers both BEFORE and AFTER the Revolt of 66.

Why modern-day ‘Christians’ basically toss ‘James, the Lord’s Brother’ into the ash-can to cling blindly to a Diaspora Greek Speaking ‘heretic’ is beyond me. The so-called founder of the Christian movement (i.e. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, whose successors were chosen BASED ON DAVIDDIC BLOOD LINEAGE e.g. his brother) was basically ditched in favour of a foreign upstart whose ‘gospel’ was ‘easier to sell to a wider gentile influenced audience’ (i.e. by ditching Torah,Kashrut, Circumcision, i.e. all the elements of the earliest followers of ‘Iesous’ cf: the Vision on the Rooftop story in ‘Acts’, penned by the Author of the 3rd canonical Greek gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was) where the following speech is placed into the Greeek Speaking mouth of Shimeon bar Yonah ha-Kephah (aka ‘Peter’) e.g.: “ Kephah, take, eat! ‘Lord, I have NEVER eaten anything that was not KOSHER or RITUALLY UNCLEAN in my entire life!’ which suggests the author of this piece was quite-aware that the ‘12’ were all originally Torah Abiders – despite the pro-Pauline pro-Gentile Thrust of the material that follows in the book…tantamount to a propaganda ploy to de-throne the James’ socalled “Party of the Circumcision”.

Again, the reason why most Christians today are ‘Pauline Christians’ is because it’s easier NOT to be Circumcised and to follow Torah & because Paul’s Single Biggest Competition (the kin of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, aka Ieosus) were virtually wiped out in the failed Jewish War of 66—another example of how the uncertain world of Politics in the 1st century (i.e. fairly early on) had a major influence upon the later theological history of the ‘Church’s Warped Weltanschauungen’…

Does any of this make sense to you, or am I speaking into a vacuum ?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





Originally posted by badmedia
Hi, to me it is not important if Jesus was real or not. The father taught me not to focus on such things, that what they represent is that which is greater and the entire point of it


Hey Badmedia

I just want to preface this by saying I’m not trying to get at you or anything like that, I’m just trying get a better picture of where your coming from. You have had a similar path to Christianity like myself and I find your way of thinking similar to my own in many respects. I am a very logically minded and rational person, so for me just to believe there was a God, was a very big and hard step for me to make, especially the seeking part.


I have only really just found Jesus/ God over the past three years and I’m not an expert biblical scholar by any means. I have had issue myself with the Doctrines which predominately come from Paul, especially where he makes himself an authority regarding various topics like marriage etc…I’m not saying these things are bad in themselves but they don’t appear to be the teachings of Jesus himself.

I am in agreement with you, in the fact that we shouldn’t be focusing on the idol, because Jesus humbles himself as a servant in the bible and tries to get us to seek and follow the Father/God. But IMO it is possible too follow what Jesus represents, believe he existed and not worship him as an idol, at the same time.

Jesus represents the likeness of God, which is what Jesus want us to be like or work towards but to say that Jesus did not exist, would mean you would have too throw out, quite a big chunk of the New and Old Testaments.



Originally posted by badmedia
So, it's not really an issue for me if he existed or not - the point of it all is still true. The father within his words is real/true. What he says and does is still true.


If you believe that what he does is true, then you have to believe that Jesus, whom ever you think he was, is still alive!, in the spirit.

NIV
John 20:17


Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.


If you believe what he says to be true i.e. Jesus represents God and vice versa, but don’t believe he exists, then how do you get around these verses?

NIV
Mathew 24:30


At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.


If what Jesus speaks is from the Father and you accept what he says, which I’m pretty sure is what you believe, then how can Jesus return, if you don’t believe he exists! ? How can you reconcile the two?


Especially when Jesus says he will return and considering, that you say, “what he says and does is true”



- JC


[edit on 10-2-2010 by Joecroft]

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Joecroft]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I'm not a biblical scholar either. I don't even try to talk about things in the way someone like Sigismund does with the different languages and so forth.

It's only been about 3 years for me since I was an atheist/agnostic. I am just given what I need as I need it and I rely on that completely.

I have no problem with being questioned, and rather enjoy it honestly. Such is my purpose/reason. I am more inclined to reply to those who disagree with me than those who do. Questions are how one seeks, and I look for hostile environments rather than friendly. So, no worries at all. Stomp me into the ground if you can.

Now, as for the part about Jesus returning.

I will not be looking in the clouds. The way I will know if such is Jesus is based on their actions and what they say/do. No different than the way I recognize Jesus now in the bible. As well, that seems to be something anyone could fake and would like to fake if possible. Not to say it is by default false etc, just that I would be looking for more than that.

However, I see the return of Jesus as meaning much more than a person coming to earth. We are talking about the return of the truth, the return of the way and things of that nature that he represents. It is that which I look for and wait for. If it come at the hands of a being named Jesus, then that is fine and dandy. Still, I will know and make my choices based on the fruits.

If I can see the father within him based only on words in a book, I should have no problem seeing the father in him upon a 2nd return either.

I tend to categorize things into what I know/understand and what is belief. I have no trouble believing Jesus existed. But I am just being honest in that I do not know for sure. It is nothing more than a belief. All I know is the story. The fact of the matter is I was not there to know any further than that. I can say for sure the rest is true/fact because I was there and did experience that.

I figure if such was that important, then the father would have told me so. But that isn't the case. I rely on the father to show me, and don't plan on changing that.


[edit on 2/10/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. I really am pretty slow. You come from no religious tradition, therefore you owe no tribute to any notion based upon religious notions, be they ever so ingrained into culture. Most of us are not that free.

Most every body comes to questions about God with some set of preexisting questions; eg How did God create? How did pain and suffering start? Does God care what happens to me? Is there life after death? If so in what way? Which mythological stories have lasting value and which can be ignored without loss?

In my own case, I already had many notions when the Lord offered an alliance. So I fit him in to that system of notions. It's like what he said about new wine in old wineskins. Eventually the wineskins must burst. It's a long process for some, especially for me. After so many years, I still can easily get sucked back in to those pre-existing notions.

For instance, I still expect some sort of physical resurrection. Mostly because the books say so. And to you it doesn't really matter. You seem to be more correct than me on this, because why should it matter? It only matters to me because the books say so. So I am still trying to be correct in doctrine. Old wineskin that I am, who will deliver me from the doctrines of men! With men it is impossible. The wine is so precious, and yet it's leaking from the cracks of my skin. If truth is thus falling to the ground, may the ground at least have the benefit!

I just don't know, and yet sometimes I pretend to know.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. I really am pretty slow. You come from no religious tradition, therefore you owe no tribute to any notion based upon religious notions, be they ever so ingrained into culture. Most of us are not that free.


Yes basically. Although I grew up in the bible belt, and went to a bunch of different churches/branches of Christianity. Where I grew up, I knew better than to say anything other than yeah I'm a christian and believe in god etc. Be surprised how many people do that. I heard it all and knew/know the Christian line. My family is Christian and so forth.

But my mom never pushed it on me. I was never forced to go to church or anything like that. It never seemed like anything more than a means of control to me. The way things were presented by the church made no real sense at all.

I was far away from such things when I had my experience. And so I learned these things separate of religion and the bible. It wasn't until I wanted to try and express what I came to understand that I found the bible and such. Because when I learned from the father, these labels like father, holy spirit, way of the tree of life - they did not exist. It doesn't work like that. It's not just someone who is going to be your personal bible reader. You just get the understanding in it's pure form, beyond the labels.

It is only when we try to express that to others that labels become important/useful. And so as I read Jesus I could see the understanding in what he said and picked up on the labels. "Father" for example is brilliant, I didn't think of that on my own. But no label in my experience, just is/was and beyond labels.

So this is mostly so that I can more easily express and talk with people about these things. If it is to turn out that I am not understanding Jesus correctly etc, and he isn't talking about what I know, then I would reject the bible before my experiences and understanding. Yet, I don't think that is the case because the understanding I see is on a level no man has ever expressed to me.



Most every body comes to questions about God with some set of preexisting questions; eg How did God create? How did pain and suffering start? Does God care what happens to me? Is there life after death? If so in what way? Which mythological stories have lasting value and which can be ignored without loss?


Questions are good - but where and to whom are you asking them to is the difference.



In my own case, I already had many notions when the Lord offered an alliance. So I fit him in to that system of notions. It's like what he said about new wine in old wineskins. Eventually the wineskins must burst. It's a long process for some, especially for me. After so many years, I still can easily get sucked back in to those pre-existing notions.


It is said that one must become as a child. What this means is that before you can really and truly come to see the father, you will have to get rid of all which you currently believe. This is not to say all of them are either right or wrong, but that if you keep them then it can block/close the door on the truth.

While the world generally likes to categorize religion into believers and non-believers, this is really false. The truth is one is either agnostic or they are gnostic. Agnostic means without knowledge, gnostic means with knowledge(knowledge of the holy is understanding).

Those who are stuck in belief and disbelief are by default agnostic. They do not really know, even if what they say could be correct. Because they do not really understand(thus belief). Belief is used to replace understanding and knowledge. As the person is satisfied by that belief, they do not seek further understanding.

So, the child is honest in that it does not know. And so it seeks based only on it's desire to know and understand. It asks - why is the sky blue. It is not shy in that it does not know, it does not feel shame for not knowing, it is just completely honest and innocent. And so in this manner one needs to become agnostic.

There is nothing wrong with being agnostic. It is a very honest position and says the truth. I do not know. It is the first step towards the goal, which is to become gnostic. With knowledge and understanding of god. But if you go into it with existing beliefs, then you are expecting god to conform to your idea of what god is, and to your idea of what he should be. And as such, it's no different than the man who goes looking for wheat in a wheatfield, yet can't find a single grain because he thinks a wheat grain should look like corn.

I just looked for the truth, whatever it may be. I was agnostic and had no problem saying so. And then it's really finding what I was seeking. I knocked and it was answered.

Really didn't even realize I was knocking at that. I just seen the evil of the world and wondered why it was like this, why it needed/had to be like this, and how would people have to live to get along. Things of that nature.

Still kind of funny, because once you realize the wheat grain doesn't look like corn then you realize it was there all along you just didn't notice it. Never really hidden, and there in abundance.

But just so happens I was looking literally for the truth, the way and the life. And so I was shown the understanding and the way, and then I was basically told I had to be the change I wanted to see before any such change was even possible. I am just as responsible for it as anyone else. Thus the importance I put on keeping the commandments/way.

So take John 14:6. A Christian sees that as meaning only by Jesus can one come by the father. And that verse is used to promote Christianity. But what I see is that Jesus is saying that only by the truth, the way and the life can one come by the father, which is what I know to be true. And when I read what Jesus said and did, then I see an example of someone who has understanding of those things and follows it etc. Same verse, but yet I see it in a totally different way in meaning. I see it has meaning beyond just the idol/person of "Jesus". It extends well beyond such a thing, even as Jesus is no doubt speaking of, from and by it. No manipulation of texts, understanding or whatever can change that either.




For instance, I still expect some sort of physical resurrection. Mostly because the books say so. And to you it doesn't really matter. You seem to be more correct than me on this, because why should it matter? It only matters to me because the books say so. So I am still trying to be correct in doctrine. Old wineskin that I am, who will deliver me from the doctrines of men! With men it is impossible. The wine is so precious, and yet it's leaking from the cracks of my skin. If truth is thus falling to the ground, may the ground at least have the benefit!

I just don't know, and yet sometimes I pretend to know.


The physical isn't real, so doesn't really matter. You could blink your eye and find yourself in a completely different place.

Only the father will/can deliver you. Take notice at Psalms 82. Those who accept the wicked are those who do not understand. Poor and fatherless and walking in darkness. If you accept and look to men for answers, that is what all you can get. Accept no man and settle for nothing less than the father. Everyone must have their own understanding/relationship with the father.



[edit on 2/10/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Unboundedness, lightlessness, timelessness, and nothingness were the four pairs of gods who existed before creation.
. . .the nineness of the gods is the teeth and the lips in this mouth which named the name of all things from which Shu and Tufnut came forth, who created the nineness. The sight of the eyes, the hearing of the ears, the sniffing of the nose, they report to the heart. It is the heart which makes all knowledge arise, and it is the tongue which repeats what the heart devises. So all the gods were made and his nineness was completed. Indeed each word of god came about through what was devised by the heart and commanded by the tongue. . . Thus were made all the work and all craft, the action of the hands and the walking of the feet and the movement of the limbs. . . So Ptah rested after he had made all things and all works of god.
I just got this book yesterday, Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by Beyerlin.
They don't mess around and they start out slamming you in the head with a two by four.
Here's your "body" and, how about a trinity, Oh make that nine,



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





Originally posted by badmedia

I have no problem with being questioned, and rather enjoy it honestly. Such is my purpose/reason. I am more inclined to reply to those who disagree with me than those who do. Questions are how one seeks, and I look for hostile environments rather than friendly. So, no worries at all. Stomp me into the ground if you can.



Well, I actually agree with many things you have said on other threads, I just haven’t said which things I agreed with.

As for stomping you into the ground lol I wouldn’t do that, but if you were drowning in quick sand, then I wouldn’t hesitate, to pull you out of the ground.




Originally posted by badmedia
I tend to categorize things into what I know/understand and what is belief. I have no trouble believing Jesus existed. But I am just being honest in that I do not know for sure. It is nothing more than a belief. All I know is the story. The fact of the matter is I was not there to know any further than that. I can say for sure the rest is true/fact because I was there and did experience that.



Ok you are being in honest in saying that you don’t know if Jesus existed or not, which is a fair statement.

When Jesus speaks it is sometimes the Father speaking through him and sometimes it is Jesus himself speaking.


NIV
John 20:17


Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.


Jesus in this verse is saying he is returning to the Father, so it is clearly Jesus speaking, about himself.




Originally posted by badmedia
So, it's not really an issue for me if he existed or not - the point of it all is still true. The father within his words is real/true. What he says and does is still true.



You say that the Fathers words are real and true, which is absolutely right but Jesus also speaks in the Bible and his words are also true and in alignment/agreement with the Fathers.


You said “what he says and does is still true”, but in the John 20:17 above, Jesus says he is going to the Father. If Jesus doesn’t exist, then who returned to the Father?. If like you said, you believe what he says/does to be true, then Jesus must surely exist. You can’t have it both ways, unless you discount this particular verse.


I mean you cant say on the one hand you believe what he says/does to be true and then when Jesus says, he is returning to the Father and does it, then turn around, and say you don’t know for sure, if he exists or not!


I am in a sense, trying to get you to make a decision regarding Jesus existence, because it seems to me, like you’re an agnostic Christian lol, which sounds kind of ridiculous.


Now like you said, no man should be able to make you believe in anything and it is up to the Father to show you the truth about this. I can’t make you believe Jesus is real, anymore than I make you believe, that death is not real.


I know this though, the Father can speak to anyone at anytime and in many different ways.


- JC



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by novacs4me
 


will you marry me, yes or no?

no really, great stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join