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.

 

There is NO One-Size-Fits-All religion.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . His triumphal return . . .

Maybe some day when you have time you might want to explain what this "triumphal return" is you are talking about.
Return to what?
A triumphal return would be the Romans going off to battle, getting the victory, then returning to the city and parading around a bit to celebrate. What you seem to have in mind is us as the enemy to be defeated, then his triumph would be in heaven to have a celebration over killing everyone in the world. I do not find that in the least bit "glorious".
It would actually be admitting defeat in the cause of carrying out God's plan to save the world.
edit on 15-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I never said it was written "to address Gnostic pseudo-graphical gospels"

So?
I didn't say you did.
But you want us to believe the Gnostics waited 200 years before they wrote anything.


Not "anything", their pseudo-graphical gospels. It would be silly for them to try and write them when the apostles and their direct disciples were still living. Irenaeus knew of some Gnostic gospels, the HUGE problem that they created was the TS, TV, and TA manuscripts. They expurgated great portions of scripture that didn't align with their heresies.

Example: The last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark. They rejected the resurrection.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



A triumphal return would be the Romans going off to battle, getting the victory, then returning to the city and parading around a bit to celebrate.


That would be a Hellenistic concept, I doubt the Hebrews had that in mind. The Biblical idea is a "return in glory and power to make His enemies His footstool and to rule with a rod of iron"



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

It would be silly for them to try and write them . . .

Oh, no kidding, and what exactly is this silliness?
So your argument is that instead of writing anything themselves, they just sat around waiting for someone else to write something so they could put out an edited version just to annoy them or something, because of a prankster spirit, and not because of any actual original thought. You go ahead and believe that to make yourself feel good. That would go along with the rest of your feel-good philosophy.
edit on 16-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That would be a Hellenistic concept, I doubt the Hebrews had that in mind. The Biblical idea is a "return in glory and power to make His enemies His footstool and to rule with a rod of iron"
Triumph is a Roman word and concept. Apparently according to your way of thinking, anything not "Hebrew" is Hellenistic.
You probably are thinking of the model found in the Book of Revelation, with the image of the crowned warrior on the white horse. That is imagery from Marduk Babylonian mythology.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Yes there is.
Avaita Vedanta or non duality.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Care to fill us in a bit more??
I'm happy to look it up... but if you'd like to explain it as a religion that everyone would agree is correct that'd be great!
Thanks...



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Oh, no kidding, and what exactly is this silliness?


Why are you asking me a question I already answered in the portion of my post you edited out in your reply?

Remember what I always tell you about reading carefully for context? This is a practical example why that's vitally important.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That would be a Hellenistic concept, I doubt the Hebrews had that in mind. The Biblical idea is a "return in glory and power to make His enemies His footstool and to rule with a rod of iron"
Triumph is a Roman word and concept. Apparently according to your way of thinking, anything not "Hebrew" is Hellenistic.
You probably are thinking of the model found in the Book of Revelation, with the image of the crowned warrior on the white horse. That is imagery from Marduk Babylonian mythology.



No, it comes from the prophet Daniel's dream. (Who was a hostage in Babylon)

"The Biblical idea is a "return in glory and power to make His enemies His footstool and to rule with a rod of iron"



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No, it comes from the prophet Daniel's dream. (Who was a hostage in Babylon)

"The Biblical idea is a "return in glory and power to make His enemies His footstool and to rule with a rod of iron"

Daniel does not have the word, horse, in it, or rider, or horseman, so I don't see where it is that this imagery of Revelation 19:11 comes from in that book.

You may want to change your terminology. To me, the triumphal return of Jesus already happened, when he went to war against death and returned victorious after his resurrection.
What you are talking about is not a triumphal return, but a going out to war, with the people of Earth as the enemy, and the victory being the death of everyone previously living on this planet. I again, see no glorious nature to such a thing.
The glory is what came to Jesus' church that he established, once its rival, the temple cult at Jerusalem, was destroyed, as predicted in the Gospels which is the prophetic indictment of that old system, and the explanation for its having to me removed.
The Rod of Iron motif is from Psalms which is the example of the ideal Canaanite ruler. This motif is taken up by Jesus and Paul to be reinterpreted as how Jesus will rule over the world from Heaven, at the right hand of God's throne. There is no literal personally going to war as the Marduk model does in Revelation.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . I already answered . . .

You put out your theory that the Gnostics did not write anything, out of fear, apparently, of being publicly humiliated for their inaccuracies, by actual eye witnesses to the events in Jesus' life.
What you did not describe is the "silly" nature of the opposing theory, which is that the Gnostics had access to the exact same material that the writers of the canonical Gospels had, which is supported by many serious biblical scholars.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



To me, the triumphal return of Jesus already happened, when he went to war against death and returned victorious after his resurrection.


No dice. Gabriel promised Mary her Son would sit on the throne of David. The Davidic throne was non-existent when Gabriel said that.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . I already answered . . .

You put out your theory that the Gnostics did not write anything, out of fear, apparently, of being publicly humiliated for their inaccuracies, by actual eye witnesses to the events in Jesus' life.
What you did not describe is the "silly" nature of the opposing theory, which is that the Gnostics had access to the exact same material that the writers of the canonical Gospels had, which is supported by many serious biblical scholars.


"Serious" as if Dr. Bruce Metzger wasn't? "Serious" as in the buffoons at the Jesus Seminar? Or "serious" as in an Agnostic scholar from North Carlolina?

Which "serious" scholar do you speak of Jmdewey60? The only "serious" scholars I've heard you sing praises to are the above ones, (except Dr. Metzger)

Those are extreme liberal men who have been educated FAR beyond any intelligence God gave them.


Irenaeus:

"Marcion and his followers (Gnostics) have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened."

"Ante-Nicene Fathers"; Vol. I; pp 434-435



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

"Serious" as if Dr. Bruce Metzger wasn't?
Here you seem to be doing you martyr routine but your proxy variation with you standing in for your favorite biblical scholar, pretending that I have somehow injured the object of your admiration by not throwing his name into my conversation which mentioned the existence of biblical scholars.

"Serious" as in the buffoons at the Jesus Seminar?
Here you are demonstrating your belief that, based on your authoritative reputation, that your labeling of people serves as a good substitute for a presentation of any evidence that would substantiate your indictment of the individuals under your critical scrutiny.

Or "serious" as in an Agnostic scholar from North Carlolina?
I could admit to some degree of agnosticism when it comes to the biblical text. For example, I was reading an essay on the Lord's prayer to answer a question by Anthony2 in the "Rapture vs NONE" thread, and came upon a sentence:

1. The Qaddish prayer . J. Dunn reflects the scholarly consensus regarding the connection between the Lord’s prayer and Jewish synagogue prayers by stating that “the Qaddish is of particular interest to Christians, since it may well have been used by Jesus in formulating the Lord’s Prayer.”
41-3 JETS
When I saw how it was worded, I thought, 'You mean how the writer of Matthew formulated it, right?'.

Which "serious" scholar do you speak of Jmdewey60?
Ones who specialize in the study of the Gnostics. Read some books on the subject and you may come up with some names if that is what you want. I would suggest that you do that rather than taking the word of your teacher in your YouTube video theology lessons.

Those are extreme liberal men who have been educated FAR beyond any intelligence God gave them.
How do you define liberal, someone who does not support Catholic dogma by default? So what does 'educated beyond their intelligence' mean? It seems the normal usage of the phrase is to describe someone who is overqualified. I am guessing that you have made up your own definition which puts this statement by you into the 'useless' category since you add no further information on how to understand it.

edit on 17-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

by JM
To me, the triumphal return of Jesus already happened, when he went to war against death and returned victorious after his resurrection.


by NuT
No dice. Gabriel promised Mary her Son would sit on the throne of David. The Davidic throne was non-existent when Gabriel said that.
So, do you mean Jesus' resurrection is no triumphal return? How do you describe the significance of Jesus' work of the cross, then? Only as the slaughter of the lamb for "payment" for your personal sins?
Your message to Mary is found only in Luke which I see as the least authoritative of the Gospels, being anonymous and admittedly not by anyone who was around when any of these events supposedly took place.
You inexplicably throw in this statement of there not being a throne in existence when the oracle was pronounced. Is this somehow designed to lend credence to your own theory, which I have to assume is that Jesus by triumphing uses the spectacle of personally murdering all the people of earth, as a celebratory act while taking his throne?
This ignores the interpretation by Paul and Jesus himself that his throne is at the right hand of Power, obviously the throne of God in Heaven.
edit on 17-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



So, do you mean Jesus' resurrection is no triumphal return?


Well, His statements to His disciples about His return and the angel saying He would return in the same way they saw Him ascend to heaven was AFTER the resurrection. I don't even consider your contention possible based upon a simple reading of the text of scripture alone. I dismissed it on that basis right off the bat.

My point was that Gabriel promised Mary her Son would rule from the throne of David, that's in Jerusalem in the city of David. It's an Earthly throne, with an Earthly literal Kingdom, in Daniel's vision Christ's Kingdom would grow into a great "mountain" (kingdom) that would fill the entire Earth. When Gabriel said that to Mary the throne of David was non-existent, and to this day hasn't existed. Since the ascension Jesus has sat on His Father's throne, which is in heaven.

The Herodian dynasty were not Jews from the tribe of Judah in the line of David, they were Moabites appointed to rule over the Jews.


This ignores the interpretation by Paul and Jesus himself that his throne is at the right hand of Power, obviously the throne of God in Heaven.


I don't deny what they say, all scripture is profitable for doctrine. Jesus is currently sitting on His Father's throne, not David's. David's throne was never in Heaven, it was on Earth in the city of David, Jerusalem.


edit on 17-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Here you are demonstrating your belief that, based on your authoritative reputation, that your labeling of people serves as a good substitute for a presentation of any evidence that would substantiate your indictment of the individuals under your critical scrutiny.


More like they aren't worth my time to even give more than a fleeting rebuke to for being heretical buffoons.

There,.. time's up.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

they were Moabites
Edomites.
You are just talking off the top of your head.
Come back when you have a substantial argument.
You are just repeating what you remember from YouTube videos.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

they were Moabites
Edomites.
You are just talking off the top of your head.
Come back when you have a substantial argument.
You are just repeating what you remember from YouTube videos.


No you're right, I made a mistake. But they still were not from the line and tribe of Judah. Not on David's throne.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Are you expecting me to write your thesis for you?
You don't make a case, or even a coherent thought.
You are just throwing out a couple factoids that in themselves mean nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join