For anyone that has any doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ

reply to post by XplanetX

When Jesus says something that is contrary to your belief you conveniently say he is being sarcastic so that it fits with your ideology? Nice one.

Seriously? You don't see the irony and sarcasm in the Matthew verses.
Even the Pharisees caught it.

There is a reason the Servant songs in Isaiah are called the Servant Songs and not the Messiah Songs; they are about the suffering servant. Is there anywhere in the songs that identifies the sufferer as the Messiah?

Jesus was beaten beyond human recognition:

So you do as Matthew does; find an OT verse then claim it as a fulfilled prophecy concerning Jesus, then pretend it actually happened.

So the golem constructed out of bits and scraps of the genocidal OT, supposedly Jesus, but not, will continue to lurch its way through the Earth spreading death and destruction in its wake. Congratulations, you are providing it your life and strength.

reply to post by kallisti36

it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

And that's wrong why?

Was the purpose of Jesus to provide an apocalyptic imagery, so that the present generation can use it as a motive for war, ethnic cleansing, and fear? Strange sort of Jesus these Christians have constructed. Very strange indeed.

It sounds like an actual miracle about the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas surviving through a hostile environment long enough to actually be written. A genuine miracle.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by XplanetX

When Jesus says something that is contrary to your belief you conveniently say he is being sarcastic so that it fits with your ideology? Nice one.

Seriously? You don't see the irony and sarcasm in the Matthew verses.
Even the Pharisees caught it.

There is a reason the Servant songs in Isaiah are called the Servant Songs and not the Messiah Songs; they are about the suffering servant. Is there anywhere in the songs that identifies the sufferer as the Messiah?

Jesus was beaten beyond human recognition:

So you do as Matthew does; find an OT verse then claim it as a fulfilled prophecy concerning Jesus, then pretend it actually happened.

So the golem constructed out of bits and scraps of the genocidal OT, supposedly Jesus, but not, will continue to lurch its way through the Earth spreading death and destruction in its wake. Congratulations, you are providing it your life and strength.

I see the irony and sarcasm in your own interpretation, that is all.

reply to post by kallisti36

Even Bart Ehrman thinks it's bunk, because it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

I'm not throwing my support in for the Thomas writings so much as I would support the idea of a current present kingdom which in today's lingo would be described as an alternate universe or another dimension. The meaning of it is something in the present and that sits beside, looking at the text. It has come close by, was the message of Jesus, meaning now there is this extra dimension that we can access which was not available previously. I don't think it is secret knowledge to gain access to it but that the accessing of it is in itself a secret knowledge.
I think the confusion comes from there being two kingdoms. The one I just described is the Kingdom of God. There is another kingdom that is still to come which is, in practical terms, the judgement of the world, which is the manifesting of the Kingdom of Christ.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by kallisti36

 

Even Bart Ehrman thinks it's bunk, because it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

I'm not throwing my support in for the Thomas writings so much as I would support the idea of a current present kingdom which in today's lingo would be described as an alternate universe or another dimension. The meaning of it is something in the present and that sits beside, looking at the text. It has come close by, was the message of Jesus, meaning now there is this extra dimension that we can access which was not available previously. I don't think it is secret knowledge to gain access to it but that the accessing of it is in itself a secret knowledge.
I think the confusion comes from there being two kingdoms. The one I just described is the Kingdom of God. There is another kingdom that is still to come which is, in practical terms, the judgement of the world, which is the manifesting of the Kingdom of Christ.

edit on 25-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

With a few reservations on my part...right on spot.

These reservations being:

Insofar no serious, RATIONAL and greater attempt has been made to make either a syncretistic or comparative examination of the 'esoteric', direct-experiences (be they theistic or 'reality' oriented), it's not possible to make any definitive conclusions.

But the available 'data' strongly indicates some uniformity amongst direct-experiences. To some extent even independent of the practices or 'methodologies' used. And when boiled down to the essentials, it's a question of achieving 'percieved access' to an existence bigger than the standard, 'known' cosmos.

There's nothing 'secret' about this, it's a question of having the personal knack for it and the effort the individual puts into it. Just as a competent scientist needs some intelligence and a long period of study.

On the other hand is exoteric religion (and similar) growing from a basis of direct-experiences, with only mundane interpretation options, which will automatically and eventually center on such interpretations. And then on interpretations of interpretations etc., until it all ends with rigid doctrinalisms of various kinds and it will be dead formalism and ritualism.

My point is, that any 'exclusivity' is to be based on having 'been there' or not (and that is not for 'authority' to decide, but for the individual to do), and why would anyone trying to go that direction care about 'authority-sanctioned' methods, as e.g. doctrines and rituals (which is the exoteric 'exclusivity'), if the aim is achieved.

Gaining 'access' is the point; not quibbling about exclusive labels, which are the result of fourth-hand speculations.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by kallisti36

it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

And that's wrong why?

Was the purpose of Jesus to provide an apocalyptic imagery, so that the present generation can use it as a motive for war, ethnic cleansing, and fear? Strange sort of Jesus these Christians have constructed. Very strange indeed.

It sounds like an actual miracle about the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas surviving through a hostile environment long enough to actually be written. A genuine miracle.

Well, Jesus has 2 roles to play. The first role has already been played out when he came as the savior 2,000 years ago. The second role hasn't yet been played out, we have yet to reach that prophecy. This second role he will come as an avenger, and he will destroy the armies of Satan that gather against him and then redeem his people the jews and any of his adopted children still left alive, the remaining christians which are probably those few who have been saved in the Tribulation.

Keep in mind that Jesus Christ IS God for all intents and purposes, he fulfilles the jews prophecy of a messiah at the end of the Tribulation.

"In the beginning, there was the WORD, and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God"- John 1:1

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John: 14-18

Clearly John the Baptist knew more than most people today even know. That Jesus the Christ is God made flesh, Jesus is the WORD and he is God. The word of God was the bible (Old Testament) and Jesus was that word in the flesh and in the beginning, there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Understand now? Jesus IS Lord, he IS God and he IS the word. God came to earth to show us mortals how to live right and obey his commandments because mankind in his blindness was living God's laws as according to man and not according to God, so God came to set an example ontop of redeeming mankind through his crucifixtion and resurrection.

Jesus could have come down off that cross and destroyed mankind for his insolence that very day, instead he chose to sacrifice himself, and all the angels in heaven wept and the sky grew dark. This is the love of God, that he save us from ourselves instead of destroying us as we deserved.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What is my "cult" specifically since you've previously admitted to being an expert at cults and their varying doctrines and beliefs.

That's really funny you would say that, considering what you said earlier about me.

Of course not. When people "come up" with things on their own that aren't in the Biblical text that gives birth to real cults. (The ones you admit you've never given study to either them or their doctrines).

That's called sarcastic hyperbole.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Goodness. Matthew is a Jew, he gives Christ's genealogy through his adoption by Joseph, Jews would only accept a claim to be from the line of David through a man. It's their culture, let them deal with the women's lib folks on that. Matthew gives Christ's legal line through Joseph. Luke, a Gentile, goes through his blood line through Mary. The daughter of Heli.

Both Joseph and Mary are from the house of David. Through different sons of David.

It's not orthodox.
You claim to be orthodox fundamental Christian. It is not orthodox to say that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke is actually Mary's genealogy. It is not orthodox that Jesus could inherit the throne of David through his mother. You seem to be saying that he did, rules be damned!

It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

Catholic Encyclopedia

. . .and it is from the father that one's lawful descent is to be traced.

Antiocian Orthodox

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

Orthodox.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by kallisti36

it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

And that's wrong why?

Was the purpose of Jesus to provide an apocalyptic imagery, so that the present generation can use it as a motive for war, ethnic cleansing, and fear? Strange sort of Jesus these Christians have constructed. Very strange indeed.

It sounds like an actual miracle about the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas surviving through a hostile environment long enough to actually be written. A genuine miracle.

Well, Jesus has 2 roles to play. The first role has already been played out when he came as the savior 2,000 years ago. The second role hasn't yet been played out, we have yet to reach that prophecy. This second role he will come as an avenger, and he will destroy the armies of Satan that gather against him and then redeem his people the jews and any of his adopted children still left alive, the remaining christians which are probably those few who have been saved in the Tribulation.

Keep in mind that Jesus Christ IS God for all intents and purposes, he fulfilles the jews prophecy of a messiah at the end of the Tribulation.

"In the beginning, there was the WORD, and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God"- John 1:1

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John: 14-18

Clearly John the Baptist knew more than most people today even know. That Jesus the Christ is God made flesh, Jesus is the WORD and he is God. The word of God was the bible (Old Testament) and Jesus was that word in the flesh and in the beginning, there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Understand now? Jesus IS Lord, he IS God and he IS the word. God came to earth to show us mortals how to live right and obey his commandments because mankind in his blindness was living God's laws as according to man and not according to God, so God came to set an example ontop of redeeming mankind through his crucifixtion and resurrection.

Jesus could have come down off that cross and destroyed mankind for his insolence that very day, instead he chose to sacrifice himself, and all the angels in heaven wept and the sky grew dark. This is the love of God, that he save us from ourselves instead of destroying us as we deserved.

All acording to a self-contained, closed and circle-argumented bubble-system, which doesn't become more true by repetitions of its assumptions.

E.g. is Jesus the ONLY candidate for pointing towards 'truth' (take Buddha as another)?.

And WHICH of the Jesus-options is THE Jesus (with or without a C after)?

Why, if any claims of objectivity are included?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Understand now? Jesus IS Lord, he IS God and he IS the word.

In the beginning was the Word. Past tense.
The word became flesh. Changed from being one thing, into being a different thing.
Jesus gave up being God, to become the first of the risen saints and to be the Christ of the saints, to be Lord, under the Father, who is God forever.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

This is the love of God, that he save us from ourselves instead of destroying us as we deserved.

And then the love of God runs out, and then comes destruction. Rather than accept that the human Jesus demonstrated a love far advanced beyond the so-called "god" of the Old Testament, you hold on to that "god" who says he never changes his mind then changes his mind and destroys the people he called "precious possession". And rather than examining the evidence, as when Jesus said,"by their fruits you shall know them." you still hold onto the lie that the Old Testament "god" never goes back on his promises.

The OT "god" creature is a liar, and a murderer. Don't you get it yet?

JN 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by kallisti36

it doesn't contain any of the apocalyptic imagery common to all canonical gospels, but rather speaks of the Kingdom as having already come and dwelling in those who possessed secret knowledge.

And that's wrong why?

Was the purpose of Jesus to provide an apocalyptic imagery, so that the present generation can use it as a motive for war, ethnic cleansing, and fear? Strange sort of Jesus these Christians have constructed. Very strange indeed.

It sounds like an actual miracle about the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas surviving through a hostile environment long enough to actually be written. A genuine miracle.

No, the Gospels contained apocalyptic imagery for two reasons: 1. the Kingdom of God is always imminent and 2. the Temple in Jerusalem was about to be destroyed. All Gospels talk about the destruction of the Temple, because of the theological implications. If there is no temple then there is no sacrifice for the atonement of sin. Therefor one must accept Yeshuah's final sacrifice in order to have their sins atoned for. The absence of apocalyptic imagery in Thomas separates Yeshuah from the Jewish people and from an urgency to do the work of God. Instead we are left with a nebulous, self centered approach to salvation in being smarter and more spiritual than everyone else (the watermark of all Gnostic works). The Gospel of Thomas is incoherent and hamfisted and where it isn't, it's ripping off someone else. Look at this gem unique to Thomas:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Thomas-114)

reply to post by jmdewey60


I may belong to the Antiochians, but I wouldn't say their theologuemen (theological opinion) is infallible. You see, just because the prevailing theologuemen prevalent in the Orthodox Church runs counter to NOTurTYPICAL's theory, doesn't mean that he's wrong even to Orthodox standards. You see, dogmatic statements in the Orthodox Church are always negative. For example Arianism is not Orthodox, this is dogma, let all who hold to it be anathema. It builds a fence around the theology, but leaves you to come to your own conclusions within that fence. There is no dogma concerning Christ's geneology and there are numerous opinions on it.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

This is the love of God, that he save us from ourselves instead of destroying us as we deserved.

And then the love of God runs out, and then comes destruction. Rather than accept that the human Jesus demonstrated a love far advanced beyond the so-called "god" of the Old Testament, you hold on to that "god" who says he never changes his mind then changes his mind and destroys the people he called "precious possession". And rather than examining the evidence, as when Jesus said,"by their fruits you shall know them." you still hold onto the lie that the Old Testament "god" never goes back on his promises.

The OT "god" creature is a liar, and a murderer. Don't you get it yet?

JN 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

God doesnt go back on his promises. He promised Adam to send us a savior, and he delivered on that when he came as Jesus. Even God's patience runs out, he has given mankind how many thousands of years to grow and learn, and we STILL keep doing the same sins OVER and OVER. When Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them", he was talking about false prophets.


Mathew 7: 13-27
13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."

What does this passage have to go with God? It speaks of false prophets, not God himself. So Israel had disobeyed God's laws several times in the OT and he punished them for it, and because if this you're saying that he is really Satan? There would have been no point sending Jesus if he was Satan he would just let us wallow in our sins and be destroyed for it. So if God destroys man for wicked acts that makes Him evil? No i do not see what you're getting at.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["Even God's patience runs out, he has given mankind how many thousands of years to grow and learn, and we STILL keep doing the same sins OVER and OVER."]

Said 'sins' consisting of not accepting self-proclaimed authority from a deranged pseudo-god? (Which is one optional religious answer to your claims).

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

You wrote:

["Even God's patience runs out, he has given mankind how many thousands of years to grow and learn, and we STILL keep doing the same sins OVER and OVER."]

Said 'sins' consisting of not accepting self-proclaimed authority from a deranged pseudo-god? (Which is one optional religious answer to your claims).

Says a person who believes in nothing. The sins i speak of are breaking God's laws. Men and women fornicating, murdering,stealing,lying,coveting,worshipping false gods,worshipping idols. Jesus said "I have not come to do away with the Old Law (OT) but to fulfill it" You can call God whatever you want, your beliefs are your right to hold onto, and i will hold onto mine as equally hard. You can call my God a psuedo-god all you want to i will not be swayed bogomil so STOP trying. Talking to me is like talking to a brick wall, i will not let your poisonous Selfism corrupt me. You can live for yourself all you want and serve only yourself, as for ME and MY house, we will serve the Lord.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I may belong to the Antiochians, but I wouldn't say their theologuemen (theological opinion) is infallible. You see, just because the prevailing theologuemen prevalent in the Orthodox Church runs counter to NOTurTYPICAL's theory, doesn't mean that he's wrong even to Orthodox standards. You see, dogmatic statements in the Orthodox Church are always negative. For example Arianism is not Orthodox, this is dogma, let all who hold to it be anathema. It builds a fence around the theology, but leaves you to come to your own conclusions within that fence. There is no dogma concerning Christ's geneology and there are numerous opinions on it.

I'm not trying to be orthodox or say that one view is especially more orthodox so much as to try to say that it is wrong to try to hide behind this claim that you are just orthodox, as if no one is allowed then to question you. (the intended application to be more general than this specific issue)

reply to post by kallisti36

No, the Gospels contained apocalyptic imagery for two reasons: 1. the Kingdom of God is always imminent and 2. the Temple in Jerusalem was about to be destroyed. All Gospels talk about the destruction of the Temple, because of the theological implications. If there is no temple then there is no sacrifice for the atonement of sin. Therefor one must accept Yeshuah's final sacrifice in order to have their sins atoned for. The absence of apocalyptic imagery in Thomas separates Yeshuah from the Jewish people and from an urgency to do the work of God. Instead we are left with a nebulous, self centered approach to salvation in being smarter and more spiritual than everyone else (the watermark of all Gnostic works). The Gospel of Thomas is incoherent and hamfisted and where it isn't, it's ripping off someone else. Look at this gem unique to Thomas:

Granted, Gospel of Thomas was written after Jerusalem was destroyed. Why should the gospel speak of warnings after they would have served any purpose? No temple. Why mention it? No specialness of Jews. Why mention it? No sacrifice for sin atonement. Why mention it?

Nebulous self centered? What ?

Some one offers a choice:
1) Personal ego survival after death, glorious bloody crushing of enemies, right to rule the world.

2) None of the above.

Which sounds better? Which would anybody choose? Which fits in better for those who want control of life and death over others? Number one of course, every time. Guess what? The choice is false. Number one is a lie. I choose two, why? It's not a delusion.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["Says a person who believes in nothing."]

'Nothing' is such a big word. I'm actually quite convinced of the existence of gravity in cosmos, and I believe very much in it.

Quote: ["The sins i speak of are breaking God's laws."]

I got that already.

Quote: ["Men and women fornicating, murdering,stealing,lying,coveting,worshipping false gods,worshipping idols."]

Outside your self-contained and circle-argumented ideological bubble, murdering, stealing, lying, coveting has absolutely nothing to do with fornicating, worshipping fasle gods or worshipping idols. The last options being peoples' own choice with or without the sanctioning by any alleged 'god'.

Quote: ["Jesus said "I have not come to do away with the Old Law (OT) but to fulfill it"]

And then there are other Jesus-versions interpretated differently from yours. Personally I prefer the versions as far away from yours as possible.

Quote: ["You can call God whatever you want,"]

I know. There is still freedom to present dissenting religious perspectives.

Quote: ["your beliefs are your right to hold onto,"]

It wasn't actually a personal belief, but an alternative religious perspective, which is preferable to yours as religions go.

Quote: ["and i will hold onto mine as equally hard."]

Don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you to rational metaphysics.

Quote: ["You can call my God a psuedo-god all you want to i will not be swayed bogomil so STOP trying."]

Suggestion rejected.

Quote: ["Talking to me is like talking to a brick wall,"]

I hope, it's not offensive, when I agree with you on this.

Quote: ["i will not let your poisonous Selfism corrupt me."]

I'll add a bit. My egalitarian, non-exclusive, non-authoritarian poisonous Selfism. As you know, I like the: 'Mind your own business', Jesus-version.

Quote: ["You can live for yourself all you want and serve only yourself, as for ME and MY house, we will serve the Lord."]

I don't think, anyone has mentioned any changes concerning your 'house'. Quite the contrary, there is much agreement that people should have their private right for individual and group-consenting religion.

But ATS is not 'your house'.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

So if God destroys man for wicked acts that makes Him evil? No i do not see what you're getting at.

You evidently have not read the Old Testament. Said "wicked acts" invariably revolve around worshipping other gods, and/or questioning the supreme authority of Yahweh, pretender to Godhead.

God does not destroy man. Evil human constructs which they worship as "god", such as Yahweh, instigate massive destruction. The only power this golem has is the willingness of people to offer their lives, children, and their world on its altar as a holocaust offering.