What the Heck did Jesus Mean?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
What did Jesus mean in this cryptic statement about Heaven being under attack?



Matthew 11
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.


The kingdom of heaven, Jesus' ministry on earth, was under attack, would continue to be, and violence would overwhelm it (Christ's death on the cross.)


So you believe that when Jesus referred to the "Kingdom of Heaven" he was referring to his ministry, here on Earth, during his lifetime. Therefore, in your opinion, the violence he spoke of was actual human violence, fighting against his ministry, not an actual heavenly war between angels and demons.


Yes, in this instance, that's what he's talking about (in my opinion.)

Actual "war" in heaven, which is referred to in the Bible, and by some evangelicals, is something I've never really been able to sort out, so I can't help you there, sorry.


How is this "new covenant" described in the Old Testament?


That's not a minor question, so I'll just defer to some random "authority": This guy sorts the prophecies by quality, while this Catholic rendering is a bit more narrative.


19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.


Well, the thing about Elijah is that he never died, and the old prophets "risen again" refers to resurrection, not rebirth, so those two answers are not indicative of reincarnation. Since John the Baptist and Jesus were contemporary figures, the passage seems to indicate general confusion on the part of the crowds as to who they were listening to, but it definitely reflects a belief in resurrection (since John had recently been killed by Herod.)




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Those both reference Pharisaical beliefs regarding resurrection, not reincarnation. Reference Acts 23:6 and 23:8



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Surely, the people knew that Jesus had a mother!

I find it hard to believe that an entire population of people would believe that corpse that had been in the ground for hundreds of years would get up and start walking from town to town, rather than believing that their God would resend the soul of a holy man to them in a new body. Besides, they wouldn't know what Elijah looked like, so having the same 100's of years old bones resurrected wouldn't be important. It's not like they would recognize the guy, walking around in old bones with new flesh!

Same soul = same soul, regardless of body type.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


No offense, but I don't trust the words of Paul. He had an agenda, he was manipulative, in my opinion, and was eager to push his religion and his ideology on the resurrection of theology.

He spends a lot of time telling his followers how to run their churches and trivial things like men's hair length and women's roles. And, he spends a lot of time espousing his own opinion on all things spiritual.

It is interesting to note though, Paul doesn't get into the life, miracles and teachings of Jesus, the man, only on his spiritual effects of salvation and sacrifice.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


That isn't what resurrection is -- it is the creation of an incorruptible physical form. If you needed your old body, someone who died in a fire, but was otherwise holy, couldn't be resurrected, right?

If you look at the "Some say you are John the Baptist", your answer is right there:

1) John the Baptist was in his early 30s when he died (he was about six months older than Jesus)
2) He was dead at the point that this line was spoken
3) Jesus was also in his early 30s at that point

So, it should be pretty obvious that they were saying that because they thought that John had been resurrected, not reincarnated, since Jesus wasn't an infant.


No offense, but I don't trust the words of Paul. He had an agenda, he was manipulative, in my opinion, and was eager to push his religion and his ideology on the resurrection of theology.


The point is to show you what the beliefs of the Pharisees were, not what Paul thought. In both that passage, as well as Jesus' lesson about "marriage in heaven", the argument is Pharisees versus Sadducees -- the former believed in bodily resurrection, the latter did not (they believed that there was no afterlife or soul, and when you died, it was oblivion.)
edit on 8-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Here is a good explanation I found. Apparently when the Greek text is translated into Hebrew it clears up quite a bit:

Here



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



And have you considered the possibility that reincarnation is an Eastern concept, not a Jewish one? Wait, yes, you have, because I call you on it repeatedly, but you've never been able to demonstrate instances in the Bible to support your belief.


Would you agree that there is quite a bit of Egyptian influence in "jewish" beliefs?


Bearing in mind that reincarnation was an unknown (or at least alien) concept to the Jews, we can determine that Jesus isn't saying that it's Elijah, reincarnated, because he'd have to very carefully explain that, and he doesn't. He just says "if it's okay with you guys, John is the one prophesied in Malachi."


There is no way of saying that reincarnation was an unknown subject to the jews. And of course lets consider said "egyptian influence" on their beliefs.

He doesn't say "if its ok with you guys".... he said specifically He IS elijah... And considering reincarnation is definatly a Gnostic belief... and you know Gnostics we're around at the time... I think saying the subject was "unknown" is a little hard to believe


That is a very clear explanation, which supports the angel's declaration in Luke 1, John's denial of being Elijah, and the fact that, during the transfiguration, two of John's former disciples saw Elijah face to face and didn't say "Hey! It's John, nice to see your head back on!"


Would you mind showing me where it says you look the same in the spirit as you look on earth?




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Look, I've asked you directly to show passages in the Hebrew Bible that support reincarnation as a tenet of the Jewish faith. I'm tired of your games of ignoring those requests, and deflecting with completely irrelevant questions.

The Jews were firmly attached to Torah as the basis of their beliefs. If support for reincarnation isn't in there, it didn't exist, no matter how many "oh, don't you think they were influenced by Egypt?" claims you might make. Jesus reiterated adherence to the Law, so by extension, Christianity has no basis for accepting reincarnation.

So, once again, where is it?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Look, I've asked you directly to show passages in the Hebrew Bible that support reincarnation as a tenet of the Jewish faith.


Look...


You didn't answer the question...


I'm tired of your games of ignoring those requests, and deflecting with completely irrelevant questions.


So you can ignore questions yet i have to answer to anything you ask?




The Jews were firmly attached to Torah as the basis of their beliefs. If support for reincarnation isn't in there, it didn't exist, no matter how many "oh, don't you think they were influenced by Egypt?" claims you might make.


Just because its not mentioned in the Torah doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Its mentioned in the bible if you know where to look... and we are talking about passages in the gospel, not the Torah...


Jesus reiterated adherence to the Law, so by extension, Christianity has no basis for accepting reincarnation.


Jesus gave two commandments which all the law hangs on... and not everything in the Torah agrees with those two laws...


So, once again, where is it?


Heres a great one...

For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

18 He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.

19 He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:

20 So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.

21 His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.

22 Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers.

23 If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:

24 Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:

26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.

27 He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;

28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

29 Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man,

30 To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living




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



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Good point. Resurrection is an Egyptian concept too. It stems from the Osirus myth, when Set kills and dismembers his body, in order to prevent his resurrection from the dead. Isis goes and finds all of Osirus' body parts except, well, you know.

Instead of Osirus being resurrected in his body, because he wasn't whole, he transmuted his "essence" into Isis, who gave birth to his new body, as the "The Son" of the Virgin. Pharaoh's bodies were mummified in expectation of needing those bodies again.

Jewish burial customs kept ancestors bones together for the purpose of resurrection


The principle in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief in Judaism, based on numerous souses "Those who are born are destined to die, and those who died are destined to live" Ethics of the Fathers, 4:22.


Of all 9 people resurrected in Bible stories:

- Elijah resurrected a widow's son.
- Elisha also resurrected a young boy. 2 Kings 4:32-37.
- Another man was resurrected, according to 2 Kings 13:20, 21.
- Jesus resurrected Lazarus.
- ...as well as Jairus' daughter (Mark 5).
- He also resurrected the son of a widow in the city of Nain.
- Peter resurrected Tabitha, also called Dorcas, of the city of Joppa. (Acts 9:36-42)
- Paul brought back to life young Eutychus, who had died when he fell from a third-floor window while Paul was speaking. (Acts 20:7-12)

And of course Jesus........

None of them had special, divine bodies, and, all of them, excluding the Jesus story, died, again. So what was the purpose of their resurrections, a few extra years?


Woe be unto you, ungodly men, which have forsaken the law of the most high God: for if you increase it shall be to your destruction. And if you be born, you shall be born to a curse. Ecclesiasticus 41:8-9, KJV, 1611 Edition, Apocrypha


Karma? Sounds like reincarnation to me.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 



Look, I've asked you directly to show passages in the Hebrew Bible that support reincarnation as a tenet of the Jewish faith.


Look...


You didn't answer the question...


Once again, deflection.



The Jews were firmly attached to Torah as the basis of their beliefs. If support for reincarnation isn't in there, it didn't exist, no matter how many "oh, don't you think they were influenced by Egypt?" claims you might make.


Just because its not mentioned in the Torah doesn't mean it doesn't exist...


That demonstrates ignorance of Judaism. Yes, if it isn't mentioned in Torah, it wasn't their belief. Period. They didn't inscribe things on door frames and tote little boxes on their foreheads and left arms for no reason, you know.



So, once again, where is it?


Heres a great one...


Yes, hooray, another example of the Pharisaical doctrine of resurrection, thanks for that.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Once again, deflection


Once again... you didn't answer the question... and i asked the innital question relating to the topic...


That demonstrates ignorance of Judaism. Yes, if it isn't mentioned in Torah, it wasn't their belief. Period. They didn't inscribe things on door frames and tote little boxes on their foreheads and left arms for no reason, you know.


We're not talkiing about Judaism in any case...


Yes, hooray, another example of the Pharisaical doctrine of resurrection, thanks for that.


you really get "resurrection" from that passage?

Did you read it?



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



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Thanks for that link. I'm still reading it, but I skipped down the page and found this gem in the footnotes.


I am indebted to David Bivin for his presentation of the link between Micah 2:13 and Matt. 11:12. Many years ago I read his book, Understanding The Difficult Words of Jesus (Austin, TX: Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, 1984), in which he presented that connection. In his revised edition (2001, pp. 84-87), he states that John the Baptist was the Breaker or Poretz, and that Jesus was the King that came through the opening that John made. This he understood from a rabbinic teaching on Micah 2:13 which he himself states actually went against what the Scripture seemed to be saying. He writes, 'the 'breach-maker' and the king are, of course, the same person, but in the rabbinic interpretation...they are two different persons' (p. 86).

That we must reject the rabbinic interpretation and adhere to the obvious Scriptural one is seen from the fact that v. 13 is a Hebraic parallelism; stating the same thing twice, but in different ways. The first part of v. 13 has the 'Breach-maker' going out of the sheep-fold before the sheep. The second part has the King (Yeshua) passing before them, saying that it is the Lord (Yeshua). We know too that 'Poretz' or Breach-maker, is an ancient biblical name for King Messiah. Also, no one entered the Kingdom of Yeshua till after His Death and Resurrection.

Yeshua Himself says that the Torah and the Prophets were proclaimed till John but that with John, the Kingdom was now being proclaimed and many were seeking to find out more about it or to be part of it. John's role was not to make the opening in the Heavenly Fence but to point the Jewish people to the One who would. As such, John came in the Spirit of Elijah to prepare the way for the King of Israel, not to make the breach in the Heavenly Barrier. John was the Messenger sent to prepare the Way for Yeshua (Is. 40:3, Mal. 4:5-6), but John was not the Poretz, the Breaker. Yeshua Himself says that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John, so John cannot be seen as being included in this conceptual picture. John dies but no one enters the Kingdom until Yeshua's Death and Resurrection.

The Shepherd (Poretz-Breaker), has made the way for His Flock. This dramatically demonstrates the problem in accepting rabbinic interpretation of Scripture, over Scripture itself. Sometimes rabbinic interpretation can be very helpful. But to swallow everything the Rabbis have proclaimed is to find oneself renouncing Messiah.


Interesting, a kind of ritualistic tag team.

I can't help wondering if this reference to violence in heaven wasn't a prophecy. Perhaps, Jesus was referring to Jerusalem as being the physical kingdom of God on Earth, but alas, he foresaw the upcoming "Jewish wars" and the siege against Jerusalem.

The John/Jesus movement may have been the catalyst that put the fate of Jerusalem and the raising of the temple into play. Certainly the siege against Jerusalem was hell on Earth for those that went through it.



Those who tried to escaped from the beleaguered city were taken by the Roman soldiers, whipped and tortured and then crucified alive before the walls of the city. Crucifixion beams sprang up one after the other into a forest of thousands of crucified bodies. Attacking Roman soldiers came upon of a group of about 6 000 women and children who had sought refuge in a part of the outer temple ground. They simply set the cloister on fire and burned the 6 000 souls to death.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Look, I've asked you directly to show passages in the Hebrew Bible that support reincarnation as a tenet of the Jewish faith. I'm tired of your games of ignoring those requests, and deflecting with completely irrelevant questions.

I hate to get between the bodies in a lovers' quarrel, but does something have to be in the Old Testament for Hebrews to have believed in it?

We know that there were different sects within Judaism, just as there are in any religion: the Zealots and the Essenes are familiar to most Christians from Sunday School.

Surely it is possible that one or more of these sects held to a belief in reincarnation? They might have got it from the Egyptians, or the Greeks, or the Persians, or even come up with it themselves. It's not such a bizarre idea, after all; it appears in many cultures.

Believing in reincarnation would not make them cease to be Jews, after all.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

The New Park Street Pulpit
Holy Violence
A Sermon
(No. 252)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, May 15th, 1859, by
the
REV. C.H. SPURGEON
at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force,"— Mat 11:12

WHEN JOHN THE BAPTIST preached in the wilderness of Judea, the throng of people who pressed around him became extremely violent to get near enough to hear his voice. Often when our Saviour preached did the like scene occur. We find that the multitudes were immense beyond all precedent. He seemed to drain every city, every town, and every village, as he went along preaching the word of the gospel. These people, moreover, not like our common church-and-chapel-goers,—content to hear, if they could, and yet more content to keep without hearing, if it were possible,—were extremely earnest to get near enough to hear anyhow. So intense was their desire to hear the Saviour that they pressed upon him, insomuch that they trod one upon another. The crowd became so violent to approach his person, that some of the weaker ones were cast down and trodden upon. Now, our Saviour, when he witnessed all this struggling round about to get near him, said, "This is just a picture of what is done spiritually by those who will be saved. As you press and throng about me," said Christ, "and thrust one another, with arm and elbow, to get within reach of my voice, even so must it be if ye would be saved, 'For the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.'" He pictured to himself a crowd of souls desiring to get to the living Saviour. He saw them press, and crowd, and throng, and thrust, and tread on one another, in their anxious desire to get at him. He warned his hearers, that unless they had this earnestness in their souls, they would never reach him savingly; but if they had it, they should certainly be saved. "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

"But," says one, "do you wish us to understand, that if a man is to be saved he must use violence and vehement earnestness in order to obtain salvation?" I do, most assuredly; that is the doctrine of the text. "But," says one, "I thought it was all the work of God." So it is, from first to last. But when God has begun the work in the soul, the constant effect of God's work in us is to set us working; and where God's Spirit is really striving with us, we shall begin to strive too. This is just a test whereby we may distinguish the men who have received the Spirit of God, from those who have not received it. Those who have received the Spirit in verity and truth are violent men. They have a violent anxiety to be saved, and they violently strive that they may enter in at the strait gate. Well they know that seeking to enter in is not enough, for many shall seek to enter in but shall not be able, and therefore do they strive with might and main.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   


So what was the purpose of their resurrections, a few extra years?
reply to post by windword
 

The broad explanation of resurrection in all cases was to show that GOD is all-powerful, sovereign, and the source of eternal life. It was demonstrative that life is found in GOD alone. Every other "(false) god" mentioned in the bible (of which there are numerous) failed to be able to raise followers from death. God is stamping His supreme authority over creation, as being creator HIMself, through the miracle of resurrection.

In Jesus' case, His resurrection was to physically demonstrate that JESUS IS SINLESS BECAUSE HE WAS GOD IN THE FLESH. His resurrection also demonstrates that His sacrifice on the cross (taking mankind's judgement and punishment for sin upon HIMself), was utterly and completely acceptable to fulfil the requirements of GOD for that sin. His resurrection also gives His followers absolute hope in eternal life if they have faith and obedience in Jesus Christ.

The resurrections performed by the disciples were to confirm the truth of the Gospel being preached by them. Not so much as to give people longer lives (although that was a benefit) but more specifically to give glory and honour to GOD the Father and GOD the Son - Jesus Christ.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 



But is he actually Elijah? No, he directly denied it.


Do you not believe Jesus would know better then john?

Yes perhaps john denied being Elijah... but have you considered the possiblity that he did not know who he was in a previous life just like 99% of the people in the world?

Jesus said specifically he was Elijah... He didn't say he was "in the spirit of Elijah"... He said he IS elijah...

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this IS Elias, which was for to come.



"if ye will receive it" is talking about the HOLY SPIRIT.

Only the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

After John baptized Jesus, the HOLY SPIRIT came down and spoke to all of them that day.

After that moment, it was the HOLY SPIRIT that would prophesy to all men about Jesus, not Jesus, men or the law alone.

These verses are talking about all men coming to know Jesus through the power of the HOLY SPIRIT after his death on the cross.

This is the message that John would be the first to preach after Christ's death.
edit on 9-9-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





That isn't what resurrection is -- it is the creation of an incorruptible physical form. If you needed your old body, someone who died in a fire, but was otherwise holy, couldn't be resurrected, right?


If our resurrection goes like Jesus' did, then it wouldn't matter if your body was ash, he can bring you back even from dust, it's what he made Adam from to begin with. There was no body left in the tomb for the 2 Mary's to find, so it was his old body that changed. I don't believe in that cremation being a sin stuff. Obviously he will use components at hand to reconstruct a flawless body as he did his own.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I hate to get between the bodies in a lovers' quarrel, but does something have to be in the Old Testament for Hebrews to have believed in it?


Certainly not, they (the apostates) believed in the Babylonian goddess Ishtar/Ashtoreth the "queen of heaven" spoken of in Jeremiah 7 and Sikkuth and Kyiunn (Moloch and Ba'al) and carried their star shaped Idol the Hexagram of Amos 5 which was later named the "Seal of Solomon" and now bears the title "Megan David" even though it had nothing to do with David at all. They picked up alot of nasty stuff in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-persia and Greece along the way.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
As for Matthew 11:12...

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Here's some commentary that might provide a better understanding.


Very few people know that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are exactly equivalent, with no difference in meaning. Only Matthew uses the title Kingdom of Heaven, as the table below reveals. Below, in the left hand column, is every instance where the phrase "kingdom of heaven" occurs in the New Testament. As you can see, this phrase is unique to Matthew. Nowhere else in the Bible does the phrase "kingdom of heaven" occur. In the right hand column are those instances where parallel passages exist outside of Matthew.


So, let's be more distinct about this meaning.


If Jesus spoke of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and made this the key for an intelligent reception of himself and his message, what is the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven? The Kingdom of God was a phrase well known to Jesus and his audience. The Kingdom of God was the national hope of Israel. It had been described in detail in the books of the Hebrew prophets (the Old Testament — actually "the Hebrew Bible").

Jesus did not play verbal games with his audience. He did not come into Galilee calling for repentance and belief in the Gospel about the Kingdom (Mark 1:14, 15) intending his audience to misunderstand his words! Common sense and honesty dictate that Jesus expected the audience to know what the Kingdom of God was. Jesus did not define the Kingdom. There was no need to do this. The Kingdom of God meant "God’s revolutionary Government" to be inaugurated by the promised Messiah on a renewed earth. (The Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven certainly did not mean a realm of disembodied post-mortem spirits in Heaven.) The Kingdom of God was a future event, and a very spectacular one. It spelled destruction for the wicked and joy and endless life for the true followers of the Messiah:


www.bibletopics.com...

God will fulfill all of his earthly promises to the Jews during the Millennial period in which Jesus will reign from Jerusalem, here on this physical earth, for 1,000 years before the "New Jerusalem" is sent down from Heaven. After the Millennial period is over, human life and flesh will be done away with and only spiritual life will exist in the New Jerusalem.





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join