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.

 

Jesus AKA God

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



So, according to your reading of John 1, John the Baptist testifies about Jesus three times?
Once before he knew who he was. Once when he baptized him. Once when Jesus walks by, some time after the baptism?
Just wondering where you stand on all that.


I believe that he must have at least heard of him.You must remember that at this time everyone was seeking the Christ.People even thought John the Baptist was he.



John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

According to the above verse, if The Word literally became flesh, then it lost any useful attributes. John 1:14, in the Greek, says that The Word dwelt in us. So one way of understanding that is by looking at the verse I quoted as meaning that The Word is in Jesus as the words coming from him, which is truth.


John 1:4 says that in him was life. so there was life in the flesh.




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
I've been planning to get Ehrman's book for a month or so, haven't quite made it to the book store yet.

I have my own theory about Jesus and James. They were of the priestly families which had married into Davidic line back during the time of the first return to Jerusalem, Zech 6. If they had planned to take the throne, this plan got sidetracked once Jesus got baptized. Jesus chose the way of universal messiah and left James with the task of earthly messiah. After Jesus was taken up, James went about secretly being king of Israel, working as a priest in the temple. His kingship was hidden from the high priests, the Herodian king and the Romans.

Rather than violent overthrows and rebellions, James chose to be the best king Israel ever had. James the Just, because as far as the people knew, he was a righteous judge for the people, appropriate to a king. It's worth noting that as long as James lived, there was no major rebellion against the Romans. After James was killed, and Israel no longer had a legitimate king (of God's choosing), the rebellion occurred and Jerusalem got wasted by the Romans.

I think you're giving me more credit for knowing some things than is warranted. Some of those things I don't know yet. I'm trying to learn. I'm pretty slow. You sure can type fast!


[edit on 12-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by oliveoil
 
John 1:1-18 is a funny little piece of literature and is not temporally linear, or logical.
You are trying to make it so, as if there is a sequence that can be followed, in order to support your desired outcome. That would be like looking at the Book of Revelation and thinking you can trace future history by following the sequence of the narrative of the book, verse by verse. It jumps back and forth and reiterates themes.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by jmdewey60]


Sounds like you are avoiding the question. As for logical, you can pick out any book in the Bible an make that same assessment. Point is John 1:1 says that the word was God. Jesus is the word. There is no way around this as I showed you already.



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.



In the beginning---first words of the OT

Was----verb is used three times with different
meanings in this verse: existence, relationship,
and predication.

The Word-----term combines God's dynamic, creative
word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the
instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and
the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy)

With God, the Greek preposition here connotes comminication
with another.

Was God; lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identitication.

It is incorrect to refer to Jesus as simply God. He is always God the Son.



One thing that cannot be accurately translated from Hebrew to Greek, is the thought, the philosophy.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Went to books a million and the only book they had was Misquoting Jesus hardcover for 25 bucks. Said they would get the soft cover in on Thursday for 15 bucks..moneys tight now so I think Ill wait until then. looks good though.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The archangel Michael is a very powerful being, most likely the one who took the position as YHWH the clan god of Israel or 'Prince of your people' (DA 10:21,DA 12:1,JUDE 1:9,REV 12:7). It would be unwise to speak ill of him or slander him. He seems to be the leading celestial being involved in bringing about the One God's plan.

Some heterodoxies have equated Michael with Jesus the Messiah. This I believe is incorrect. Michael the prince of Israel is still the prince of Israel, Jesus the Messiah, son of David is the human intercessor, like Moses, between Michael and Israel. That's why I believe Israelites would be wise to accept Jesus as Messiah.

For Gentiles Jesus is their representative to the One true invisible God. It would be wise for Gentiles to treat Israelites with utmost respect, since they have a double portion in God's plan. To abuse an Israelite is to cut one's self off from God, for they are blood kin to Jesus, and Michael the Prince will consider you fair game.

To bring this back to Earth, should Gentiles help Israelites kill other children of Abraham? No, absolutely not! Such would be leading the children astray, better for a millstone to be tied about your neck... Is it God's will for some new stone temple be built in Jerusalem? Absolutely not! Michael is free of such weak and beggarly things. He will not be chained. Maybe some other celestial being, or former, now cast down celestial being, would welcome such a job. Hint! Hint! Don't have anything to do with such a project! Don't give money. Don't listen to lobbyists, vote out politicians, whatever it takes to separate yourself from such a thing.

(I can't resist plugging my own personal pet peeve in here). The growing orthodoxy of the American empire is dispensationalist, "let's get that temple built quickly so we can be raptured and the Jews can get killed by anti-christ" teaching. This is horrendous, those who teach these things will suffer extreme wrath of God and the lamb and the archangel Michael. Better if they cut their own throats now.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rileyw
 


I didn't see you humm.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.



In the beginning---first words of the OT

Was----verb is used three times with different
meanings in this verse: existence, relationship,
and predication.

The Word-----term combines God's dynamic, creative
word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the
instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and
the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy)

With God, the Greek preposition here connotes comminication
with another.

Was God; lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identitication.

It is incorrect to refer to Jesus as simply God. He is always God the Son.



One thing that cannot be accurately translated from Hebrew to Greek, is the thought, the philosophy.



I can't tell you what you just said however I can tell you that in greek(I hope either sig or pthena can back me up, not that they believe however) when the definite artical is used it often stresses the individual, and when it is not present it refers to the nature of the one denoted. thus, the verse can be rendered " and the word was of the nature of God" The full diety of Christ is supported not only by the general useage of the same consturuction, but by all the other references in John to Jesus being God 8:58,10:30,20:28, not to mention Col 1:15-16 ,2:9 and Titus 2:13.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
The archangel Michael is a very powerful being, most likely the one who took the position as YHWH the clan god of Israel or 'Prince of your people' (DA 10:21,DA 12:1,JUDE 1:9,REV 12:7). It would be unwise to speak ill of him or slander him. He seems to be the leading celestial being involved in bringing about the One God's plan.

Some heterodoxies have equated Michael with Jesus the Messiah. This I believe is incorrect. Michael the prince of Israel is still the prince of Israel, Jesus the Messiah, son of David is the human intercessor, like Moses, between Michael and Israel. That's why I believe Israelites would be wise to accept Jesus as Messiah.

For Gentiles Jesus is their representative to the One true invisible God. It would be wise for Gentiles to treat Israelites with utmost respect, since they have a double portion in God's plan. To abuse an Israelite is to cut one's self off from God, for they are blood kin to Jesus, and Michael the Prince will consider you fair game.

To bring this back to Earth, should Gentiles help Israelites kill other children of Abraham? No, absolutely not! Such would be leading the children astray, better for a millstone to be tied about your neck... Is it God's will for some new stone temple be built in Jerusalem? Absolutely not! Michael is free of such weak and beggarly things. He will not be chained. Maybe some other celestial being, or former, now cast down celestial being, would welcome such a job. Hint! Hint! Don't have anything to do with such a project! Don't give money. Don't listen to lobbyists, vote out politicians, whatever it takes to separate yourself from such a thing.

(I can't resist plugging my own personal pet peeve in here). The growing orthodoxy of the American empire is dispensationalist, "let's get that temple built quickly so we can be raptured and the Jews can get killed by anti-christ" teaching. This is horrendous, those who teach these things will suffer extreme wrath of God and the lamb and the archangel Michael. Better if they cut their own throats now.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by pthena]



I assume because of my avatar you are speaking of Michael the Archangel.
I just dont understand how people can equate him with Jesus. I don't get it.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Went to books a million and the only book they had was Misquoting Jesus hardcover for 25 bucks. Said they would get the soft cover in on Thursday for 15 bucks..moneys tight now so I think Ill wait until then. looks good though.
I have that book and got it when it was only available in hardback. It's informative but a little pessimistic. He thinks it will not be possible to ever get to the original, as in what was actually written by the Apostles.
There is a used hardback on Amazon for $4. The shipping is usually about $3.25, so you can get one in good condition for a little over $7.
I buy used books when they are available. I just got one last week on Job that had a nice library cover, where it looks like they incorporate the original dust cover in a clear plastic cover. Anyway, nice, and looking inside, sure enough, it came from a library that apparently didn't need it anymore. Well, as you might expect, in perfect condition. (had only been checked out four times)


[edit on 12-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by oliveoil
Went to books a million and the only book they had was Misquoting Jesus hardcover for 25 bucks. Said they would get the soft cover in on Thursday for 15 bucks..moneys tight now so I think Ill wait until then. looks good though.
I have that book and got it when it was only available in hardback. It's informative but a little pessimistic. He thinks it will not be possible to ever get to the original, as in what was actually written by the Apostles.
There is a used hardback on Amazon for $4. The shipping is usually about $3.25, so you can get one in good condition for a little over $7.
I buy used books when they are available. I just got one last week on Job that had a nice library cover, where it looks like they incorporate the original dust cover in a clear plastic cover. Anyway, nice, and looking inside, sure enough, it came from a library that apparently didn't need it anymore. Well, as you might expect, in perfect condition. (had only been checked out four times)


[edit on 12-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



I go to a used Christian book store over here in Lehigh Acres they usually have some jems. I found an old ASV Bible for 2 bucks. Looked on ebay guy wanted 60. Any how, thanks for the tip. Ill check out amazon, could save me some cash. Times are tough and every penny helps.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil


I assume because of my avatar you are speaking of Michael the Archangel.
I just dont understand how people can equate him with Jesus. I don't get it.

Jehovahs witness and seventh-day Adventists do that. They take archangel as the first angel (son of God) and say that was the pre-existing Christ, who somehow was born of Mary. It's not a difficult conclusion to reach if you pre-suppose the pre-existence of Christ while attempting to avoid a full athenasian trinitarian doctrine. While at the same time equating the clan god YHWH with the One true God.


when the definite artical is used it often stresses the individual, and when it is not present it refers to the nature of the one denoted. thus, the verse can be rendered " and the word was of the nature of God"

That's the way I seem to remember it from when I used to know a bit of Greek. After I look up those verses I'll try to expose my understanding of the One God.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Sounds like you are avoiding the question. As for logical, you can pick out any book in the Bible an make that same assessment. Point is John 1:1 says that the word was God. Jesus is the word. There is no way around this as I showed you already.


Jesus is called the "word in the flesh" because he does the will of the father, and is thus symbolic of the understanding of the divine.

I've given you plenty of examples of this, such as how the last super is the physical/flesh version of Proverbs 9. Where Jesus in the last super is "feeding" them with understanding and knowledge, and giving them wisdom etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
John, none greater born our of woman,
he was before, and will be after you.

Because he symbolises the son.
The son is truth, and truth is the living word,
because it is god, salvation, elijah.

The living word can interpretate the bible,
the bible can not interpretate god.
The bible is a dual book, with a dual law,
the real law, and the symbolic law.
one or divided , god or baal, 1 or accusers.

The law= god is one, love god,
it means growing, meaning living word,
it will change you, truth (son) grows in you,
it is god growing in you,
he comes down. Will make Him one with you (woman).
Let him the man, father, educate you, the woman.

I have come in my fathers name, my father is one,
that was jesus, not a person, but speaking from
ALL which is one, as truth, as god. thats why all is his body.
As your body is too.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   


davnet.org...

The Pseudo-Clementine System
It is based on a 2nd century document claiming to be a collection of sermons by Clement of Rome. These writings emphasize the unity of God (as opposed to the Trinity), representing God as dwelling in bodily form at the center of the universe. The work is strongly dualist -- dividing everything into a thing and its opposite (male-female, good-evil, Christ-antichrist, etc.).

From my own Pagan pantheistic understanding, I conclude that the physical universe is the visible representation of the invisible God, including man, male and female, that's the duality. I don't view creation as an event, but as an ongoing process. Made of dirt(female)+breath(male)=life(blood/soul solid cell(female) carrying oxygen(male). That's all natural mortal stuff.

God the Father is the invisible infusing all. As such, I would almost conclude that the Holy Spirit is the One God the Father. The life/soul is female(we're all a bunch of women!) and the Father is male. Through the spirit we have a bit of the quickening, in the resurrection the union becomes complete, hence no marrying for we become as angels(male/female). The universe is dead without the spirit, and God is only complete in the physical universe.

We all have some of the Father in us. How quickened we are depends very much on our own will and how we conduct our lives. Asceticism and celibacy actually are beneficial as foreshadowing the resurrected self. Fake asceticism and celibacy are counterproductive and harmful. A married person owes something to a spouse, the withholding of that debt is not any better than theft. (see how I sermonize!)



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
Wow! you said it better than I did in my last post. How offensive do you think it will be to admit we are all women?
Talk about stumbling blocks! LOL!


[edit on 12-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


quote
The full diety of Christ is supported not only by the general useage of the same consturuction, but by all the other references in John to Jesus being God 8:58,10:30,20:28, not to mention Col 1:15-16 ,2:9 and Titus 2:13.


But also;

Jn 17:3---"This is eternal life: that they know you, the only God and him you sent, Christ Jesus."

Jn14:28 "The Father is greater than I."

Jn20:17 "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to
my God and your God"

1Cor 8:6 "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all
things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

1Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and there is one mediator
between God and men, the man, Christ, Jesus."

Thee passages clearly distinguish between God the Father and
Jesus the Son. I've never know anyone who called Jesus God,
nor prayed to Jesus as God, prayer is directed to God, through
Christ, his mediator, his Son.

The deity of Jesus isn't questioned, fully human and fully devine.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
pthena,
Thought you might enjoy this excerpt, since you were discussing your view of the religion of Yahweh. You seem to be good at gaining insight from these Old Testament stories. The author here does some of your style of analysis, in my opinion.

It is inconceivable that the national cult of Jeroboam was other than Yahwistic. Jeroboam and the tribes of the North seceded in the face of Solomonic innovations and remained the center of League traditions. Jeroboam, desperate to consolidate his kingdom, wrenched from the Davidids and desirous of wooing his own people away from the shrine of the ark in Jerusalem and its pilgrimage festivals, would not have repudiated Yahweh and chosen a new god. Nor would he have flown in the face of fact and tradition by naming another god as the god who brought Israel up from Egypt.
Further, it is impossible to believe that opponents of the Bethel establishment from the Northern Kingdom invented the account of Aaron and the bull. Aaron receives strange handling in the account. How did it come about that venerable Aaron himself was credited with the manufacture of the double of Bethel’s bull and the recital of a classic Yahwistic cult formula over it? Other peculiarities appear in the story: the young bull “emerged” from the fire. There are too many loose threads in the account. Underneath the polemical tale must have been a cult legend of the old sanctuary of Bethel claiming Aaronic authority for its bull iconography. In short, it appears that Jeroboam did not invent a new cultus, but, choosing the famous sanctuary of ʾĒl at Bethel, attempted to archaize even more radically than the astute David had done when he brought the tent and ark and the cherubim iconography to Jerusalem, transferring the nimbus of the old league sanctuary at Shiloh to Zion. The sanctuary of Bethel had Patriarchal connections according to tradition, and the bull iconography of Jeroboam’s shrine merely reintroduced an iconography having Aaronic connections. The young bull apparently had dual associations; the storm god is often pictured standing on the bull, a symbol of virility, and the bull was the animal of the Ṯôr ʿIl ʿabīka, “Bull ʾĒl your father.” There can be no question of Jeroboam introducing a Ba ʿl-Haddu cult; if he had, tradition should have preserved the fact, in vivid invective. As a matter of fact there seems to have been no awareness on the part of those who preserved the Elijah-Elisha traditions, or upon the part of Amos, or the tradents of I kings 13, 14, or of the radical idolatry of the Bethel shrine and its bull. None of them made any mention of the young bull when they visited Bethel.
Apparently, Jeroboam’s sin was establishing a rival to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem, not in the introduction of a foreign god or a pagan idol. As we have argued, it is wholly implausible that an insecure usurper, in an attempt to secure his throne and to woo his subjects would flout fierce Yahwists by installing a foreign or novel god in his national shrine. Yet he made an ʾĒl shrine his royal chapel. The only real solution for these several problems, so far as I can see, is to recognize in Yahweh an ʾĒl figure.
Our interests have been directed toward the continuities between the god of the Fathers and Yahweh, god of Israel. We have agreed with Alt to this extent, that Patriarchal religion had special features; the tutelary deity deities entered into an intimate relationship with a social group expressed in terms of kinship or covenant, established its justice, led its battles, guided its destiny. This strain entered Yahwism. Yahweh was judge and war leader of the historic community. He revealed himself to the Patriarch Moses, led Israel in the Conquest; he was the god who brought Israel up from the land of Egypt, her savior. There was also the second strain which entered Israel’s primitive religion, that of the high and eternal one, ʾĒl the creator of heaven and earth, father of all.

This is a rather long quote from Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.
The mention of Alt has to do with this essay, which I am quoting the conclusion of, which is Cross' analysis of Alt's opus, the history of the religion of the Old Testament.
Reading Mark S. Smith, who sometimes collaborated with Cross, you get that there was a certain degree of tolerance of El back in the kingdom times because I think in the back of everyone's mind, there was this unspoken recognition that there really was a father, even if it would have been considered officially heresy.


[edit on 13-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


EX 6:2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

The memory of Abraham was strong in the land. Also Bethel was important because of Jacob connection. And also:


GE 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

In Solomon's day the most important shrine was Gibeon, where he had his first dialog with YHWH in a dream. Solomon kept going there to sacrifice right up until the temple was finished, even though the ark was in the city of David the whole time. Jerusalem, Gibeon, and Bethel are all within about 12 miles of each other.

Solomon decorated the temple quite extensively with lions, bulls and cherubim(1 Kings 7) and also the Sea stood on 12 Bulls. I really think the sea represents what the Elders saw the God of Israel standing on (Ex 24:10) the imagery is God standing on a sky reflection standing on 12 bulls. I have a hard time deciphering which idols are OK with god and which aren't. Maybe it's the Asherah pole next to Baal shrines that constitutes the wrong.

The sin of Jeroboam. He made calves and he sacrificed to these calves. Only a priest/king in order of Melchizedek can legitimately offer sacrifice, ie in Jerusalem(Salem). When Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel he wrote a law book for kings(1 Samuel 10:35) which did not include kings offering sacrifices (1 Samuel 13:7-14). Saul sacrificed and thereby forfeited any dynasty. Jeroboam appointed any old body to act as priests and he sacrificed offerings himself. His sin was the same as Saul's. If there was a shrine to El in Bethel, he should have left the priesthood as is and participated as a spectator. In other words not instituted his own inovations.

He didn't have access to Gibeon, which would have been the safer choice, because it was in Benjamin's territory, and Benjamin stayed with Judah after the split.

Here's another example of the angel of YHWH and YHWH being the same:


JDG 6:11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, "The LORD is with you, mighty warrior."

JDG 6:14 The LORD turned to him and said, "Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian's hand. Am I not sending you?"




[edit on 13-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Solomon did some strange things himself.

2 Chronicles 3:15 In front of the temple he made two pillars which had a combined length of 52½ feet, with each having a plated capital seven and one-half feet high. 3:16 He made ornamental chains and put them on top of the pillars. He also made one hundred pomegranate-shaped ornaments and arranged them within the chains. 3:17 He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the right side and the other on the left. He named the one on the right Jachin, and the one on the left Boaz.

Your mention of the Asherah made me think of this. Mark S. Smith's book, Early History of God seems to have been written for the purpose of dealing with the question of whether ancient Israel worshipped a female god alongside Yahweh. He brings up these pillars in the discussion. Smith seems to take the attitude that somehow this was permissible. The tree in your post may even be significant, since the pillars were adopted as a sort of substitute for a tree for god to rest under (or you may be led to believe, by reading Smith)

[edit on 13-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
2 pillars to enter the tempel.
everything is made as 2.

father/son witnessing =
israel/gentiles

man/woman spirit/created

all stories have more then one level.

The worship places are like our history,
for example all times have different borders in the exposing of truth,
so the worship center moves along history,
those places were played out by israel.
Israel is a footprint of our history and all its religions together.

Notice the 2 worship places of the northern kingdom, one Dan,
which are the borders of the kingdom that went away
from its god, but still had the option to return to Him.
Lost between God and Baal.
One or divided.

Woe to pregant woman, means those carrying 'the son' in them,
let them flight before winter... it means prepare...

Those in Judea flea to the mountains, those from the southern kingdom
(did not forget god (as one)) flee to wisdom (mountain = power = wisdom)

Jerusalem is the son of man, is the prophets.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


Solomon did some strange things himself.

2 Chronicles 3:15 In front of the temple he made two pillars which had a combined length of 52½ feet, with each having a plated capital seven and one-half feet high. 3:16 He made ornamental chains and put them on top of the pillars. He also made one hundred pomegranate-shaped ornaments and arranged them within the chains. 3:17 He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the right side and the other on the left. He named the one on the right Jachin, and the one on the left Boaz.

Your mention of the Asherah made me think of this. Mark S. Smith's book, Early History of God seems to have been written for the purpose of dealing with the question of whether ancient Israel worshipped a female god alongside Yahweh. He brings up these pillars in the discussion. Smith seems to take the attitude that somehow this was permissible. The tree in your post may even be significant, since the pillars were adopted as a sort of substitute for a tree for god to rest under (or you may be led to believe, by reading Smith)



2KI 16:17 King Ahaz took away the side panels and removed the basins from the movable stands. He removed the Sea from the bronze bulls that supported it and set it on a stone base. 18 He took away the Sabbath canopy that had been built at the temple and removed the royal entryway outside the temple of the LORD, in deference to the king of Assyria.

Solomon seems to have attempted to gather every conceivable piece of sacred imagery he could to include in his temple. The sea, as mentioned already was reminiscent of what the elders saw on mount Sinai. Placing it on bulls was a nod to older El worship. The two pillars represent two witnesses, and by extension the widespread custom of meeting and making contracts in gateways.


EX 33:7 Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the "tent of meeting." Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. 8 And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. 9 As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. 10 Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to his tent. 11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

In fact, all important matters eg appointing priests were done at the entrance. The chains with pomegranates were probably a symbolic canopy. In a sense, Solomon re-created the tent of meeting outside the temple. The big alter of sacrifice was built on the spot where the destroying angel hovered after David's census. That's a picture for you; sacrificing to the destroyer!

Solomon swept up every form of worship practiced anywhere in the world, and set up alters, groves, high places for all his 1,000 wives and concubines, and officiated even. He built an empire that every surrounding nation had to go to seek guidance from any and all gods or things to be worshipped. He made Jerusalem the only portal for divine knowledge, and made himself the god on earth. How far is Solomon's empire citified religion from the simplicity of Abraham's sitting down and eating with God!

Solomon set up 'Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes, and of the abominations of the Earth' (Rev. 17:5). Prophet after prophet came and called Jerusalem and her kings for what they were. Prophet after prophet was killed.


MT 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

I tell you plainly, those who attempt to bring about once again the glory days of Solomon are attempting to resurrect every abomination ever conceived by the mind of man.

People want to call Solomon wise. His is the wisdom I can do without. How far removed is his glorious temple from the simple stacking of undressed stones! How far removed from each man and woman on earth simply looking up and seeing for themselves the sky, the visible representation of the invisible Father in heaven and knowing that in Him we live and breathe and have our being!



[edit on 13-1-2010 by pthena]




top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join