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.

 

Romans 11 and the current so-called Jewish State of Israel

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by NOTurTypical


Get over it. It's the same Man.

I was never under it, except for a very short time, about two weeks, back in 2009, when I fell into the trap laid by people who were teaching and preaching that you had to say it and spell it like it was Hebrew.

So thank you for the advice. I will hereby "get over it", retroactive to 2009.
]


Well, I guess I'm sorry it took you two weeks to figure it all out. Two weeks is better than two months, or two years, or two decades I suppose. Should have just followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and you never would have wasted two weeks. Notice above I said I'm not a "sacred namer" and that their doctrine is absurd. We're saved by what He did, not what Name we use to call unto Him. Either by His Jewish Name, His Greek Name, nor His Latin to German to English one either.

Jesus saves, not a magic formula to get the correct spelling or syllables.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

So I'm stuck with non-dual.
In the fulfillment of the desire to be, one accepts the reality which exists, seeing no other way.
Maybe the "dual" in the above is the transition of the desire from the initial one, to a second one, to make the reality better than as one found it.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


In the fulfillment of the desire to be, one accepts the reality which exists, seeing no other way.
Maybe the "dual" in the above is the transition of the desire from the initial one, to a second one, to make the reality better than as one found it.

A dual system offered the hope of personal ego survival through some device. Such as:

Neoplatonism (body/soul), when you die, the soul-self lives on through immortality of the soul), you can escape the physical now through Philosophy

In Gnosticism, it's much like neo-Platonism, but the mechanism of current escape is the secret knowledge

New-Age Ascension religion (pretty much Theosophy) is nothing more than a form of neo-Gnosticism.

Non-dual doesn't offer any escape for the personal ego existence from this World. This is it, I've got to make the most of it. If there is any benefit derived from my life, after I've ceased, that benefit will be enjoyed by some one else, or many some ones.

If the God who poured His being out so completely in the process of getting the Universe going that He no longer exists apart from the Universe, could care that much, who am I to demand some personal ego survival? That would be chasing after the wind.

Edit to Add: So the non-dual becomes dual, not that I survive, but that the future survives, apart from me. (present/future) but not apart from me, because I would not have gone away to somewhere else.


edit on 8-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

who am I to demand some personal ego survival?

What would that be, like Jesus saying he felt some of his virtue pass from him when the woman touched the hem of his garment?
Do you think Jesus was concerned that he would run out, or did he have so much that it so easily was transferred to others?

Early Israelites: Two Peoples, One History
"Israelites" at Amaz.
is a new book out, which if you are an Amazon Prime member, and own a Kindle device, you can "borrow" for free (they encourage you to un-borrow it by allowing you to borrow another new book, once a month). So I downloaded it to see what it has to say about where the Canaanites originated from.
From a quick glance, it seems the author's thesis is that the Canaanites periodically experienced famines and habitually went to Egypt, then returned. So this was their origin, though the southerners and the northerners were different people, they both did the same thing, so had a shared type of history but never were actually one people.

This book is dedicated to the most mysterious and controversial events in biblical history. On the basis of the biblical texts and ancient Near Eastern sources, the author, a professor of Near Eastern Studies, presents an entirely new view of the history of Early Israel and the origin of the Hebrew tribes. He suggests that the genealogy of biblical family constitutes a combination of the legends of two tribal groups – the southern and northern, which arrived in Canaan and then left for Egypt at different times. The Southerners stayed in Egypt for 430 years - the Northerners, 250 years - and occupied there different positions in the socio-political structure .
From the book description.
This would explain the "lost tribes", which is there never was any, and the Jews were just their own "nation" ever so loosely connected with the "Israelites" who weren't really missed as they were assimilated into the greater region when they bonded with neighbors to the north.
edit on 8-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I got the book today delivered that I was talking about on page 6,
The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey
I did not pay too much attention to what the book actually was,
mainly wanting to get the latest book by this author, Niels Peter Lemche.
It is not what I imagined somehow it was by looking at the title.
It seems to be a survey of the different ways the OT was analyzed over the years.
So, not what I would recommend for the average reader, being more in-house
type stuff of interest only to people who study the scholars, so to speak.

The other book I mentioned above, Early Israelites, I do recommend.
It is a real page turner. Of course if you care about the OT.

edit on 9-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Did you say that you read The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Finkelstein & Silbernan? or a different book? Because I strongly agree with Finkelstein's approach and conclusions as stated in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archeology and the History of Early Israel. I might be interested in more Finkelstein, after I catch up on other books that I haven't finished yet.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Did you say that you read The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Finkelstein & Silbernan?
I never read the actual book but there was an extensive article on it in Wikipeda that I read a while back. I was probably still a fundamentalist back then so was not too happy about it. That was when I was studying the Hebrew to find out what "really" happened.
Lipovsky takes a sociologist approach which is really different than what I am used to but he really seems to know what he is talking about and makes a lot of sense to me. He thinks the stories are based on real events but changed to make themselves look good. So far, where he has gone through the basic Genesis story of Abraham up through the situation in preparation for the Exodus.
edit on 10-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Romans 11 and the current so-called Jewish State of Israel,

There is nothing 'so called' about the soverign nation of Israel. This is 2012. It exists.
As for Paul ... I'm not a huge fan. What he had to say 2,000 years ago is irrelevant
to the fact that Israel exists. It's a tiny spit of land that is 'homeland' for the Jews.
The Muslims have dozens of 'homelands'. The Jews can have their lil' country.

Welcome to 2012.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

It's a tiny spit of land that is 'homeland' for the Jews.
It was back when it started out in '48.

The Muslims have dozens of 'homelands'. The Jews can have their lil' country.
The idea of a religious homeland is the idea of the Israelis, and not something you can just transfer to other religions as if they just magically have the same sort of concept towards their own religion. What is in question at least in my my mind, is how about a "homeland" for the actual inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinians, as theirs is being incrementally taken away from them?
So what is your reason for supporting Israel? Is it just a notion of fair play? You claim there is a "nation" of Israel, so what is your definition of a nation? Is it a race? It seems to be. Do you think all "nations" on Earth should be exclusive to a particular race, and anyone not fitting the selected criteria for that racially accepted nationhood are to be deported? And can that racially selected nation feel free to take any nearby land in order to expand for the sake of their own race?




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join