A voice from above?

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by DISRAELI

If the Christian teaching is that Christ is both God and man, drawing attention to the human part of that combination gets you nowhere.

But yet, Christianity has focused on the human. Jesus once asked ""What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. Matthew 22:42.

How many Christians would walk away from Jesus, if they suspected he was not "the son of David"? If any man, just a common bloke, as far as parentage went, heard a voice from heaven "You are my son" would people think he was special enough to think he might just be the Christ?

Was that David's voice speaking from heaven then? Or was it the voice who originally said such a thing to David? Psalm 2:7. If the OldTestament god could take David, of a non royal family and appoint him king and son, couldn't he do the same for another non-royal? After all, hadn't Saul of Benjamin been the LORD's anointed before David of Judah?

So, to answer the OPs question: It must have been David's voice. Otherwise Christianity and/or Messianic Judaism in general might not have caught on as the religion destined to militarily conquer the World (Psalm 110).

edit on 5-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

No, it was not David's voice from heaven. Jesus is from the line of David, not his son. Jesus as the Son of God is greater than David, that is why David called him Lord.

reply to post by 1PLA1

Hello 1PLA1,

I'm sorry that I was being facetious there, about David's voice. And I'm sorry DISRAELI, for yelling. , Akragon did word his question in the way you said.

Jesus as the Son of God is greater than David, that is why David called him Lord.

I think Jesus raised the question in order to get the audience to rethink some of their ideas about Messiah, if Messiah is greater than David, then perhaps Messiahness is perhaps different from the notion held (King on throne).

To the Samaritan woman at the well, who already had the view of Messiah as teacher:

John 4:25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah comes,” (he who is called Christ). “When he has come, he will declare to us all things.”

26 Jesus said to her, "“I am he, the one who speaks to you.”"

The kind of Christ who needs no crown, needs no throne, needs no court musicians to sing his praises in order to stroke his self-importance. That's the real hidden joke that Jesus was bringing up. Psalm 110 was not written by David, it was sung to him by a court singer.

"The LORD (that's the OT god), says to my Lord (that would be David, the singer's Lord),
sit at my right hand ..."

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Jesus was the image of God in the material. An image cannot tell the story of the one casting the image.

It seems to me, he told the story of the one "casting the image" and unfortunatly it doesn't line up with the God of the OT...

Yes there are certian things that line up... but don't christians also believe that Satan also reads and knows the bible even better then we do?

I would be more inclined to believe he inspired the OT... Not the true God Our Father



reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Now what does a person who seemingly already knows everything need with answers from people he would automatically disagree with anyway? Ah the counterproductivity of that, truly amazing.

I don't find it counter productive in the least... Look at the discussion brewing as we speak...

Do you believe it matters in the least that i disagree with Christian theology?

I find it rather amusing that i can't ask a simple question about Christian beliefs without having several Christians jumping all over me and accusing me of something sinister...

Just because my answers are not the same as yours might be... doesn't mean im looking for converts...

And if my threads sway peoples beliefs then it was meant to be either way... True Faith can not be swayed, and if it can.... then it can hardly be a solid foundation

My beliefs are never swayed... they are rock solid.

Unfortunatly i can't say the same about Christian theology... which is why i ask questions... As i've said, im curious as to why Christian beliefs are soooo far from my own when both Christians and myself believe in Jesus

reply to post by DISRAELI

 

The question in the OP arose because of the assumption that Akragon pretended to make about Christian beliefs, that God must be absent from heaven as long as he was on earth in the form of Jesus..

You completely missed the point...

I didn't assume God was Absent from Heaven when Jesus was on earth... How could that be possible if he spoke from "above"...

I draw attention to the seperation between him and his Father.... They are one... YET seperate entities...

Jesus did NOT say "I and my Father are one and the same"

And that is a Christian belief... correct?

edit on 5-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

You are still not speaking of the Eternal and Most High when you are referring to the Lord of the OT. The Lord is the Son being raised. You are speaking of yourself by the way. We are all cut from the same loaf and to cast judgment on the Lord is to point your finger at your reflection in the mirror. You still don't get it do you?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Oh i get Christian theology... I just don't agree with it.

When i speak of the "Lord" of the OT im refering to the imposter posing as the true Father of creation...

I'd refer you to my thread but im sure you've read it already...

Plus im following my thread from work... And its a pain ti give full detailed replies from my iphone

Originally posted by Akragon
When i speak of the "Lord" of the OT im refering to the imposter posing as the true Father of creation...

Why does Jesus speak so highly of this "impostor" and say that loving him is the first and greatest of all commandments? It wasn't until almost 100 years after Christ's death that anyone who believed in Christ but dismissed the God of the Israelites appeared, and he was rooted in anti-Semitism.

I presume that you're not anti-Semitic, in spite of your statement there, but how do you reconcile Christ's teaching with something that he fairly obviously did not teach?

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I don't understand yet what you're saying. I guess I should read your thread. I did look up Anthroposophy recently, as it related to someone else's phrasing on another thread ( I don't remember which one off hand ).

The Lord is the Son being raised

Can you specify what you mean by Lord? Do you refer to LORD (YHWH) or Lord Jesus as Christians say?

John 8:23 He said to them, "“You are from beneath. I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”"

28 Jesus therefore said to them, "“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things.

The lifted up one seems to be The Son of Man, according to these verses, identified as Jesus who was from above.

reply to post by adjensen

Why does Jesus speak so highly of this "impostor" and say that loving him is the first and greatest of all commandments?

Simply put... he is not talking about the so called God of the OT... The God he speaks of... his father, is kind and merciful, forgiving and generous. The God of the OT makes these claims but shows nothing of the sort.

Any God that commands his children to kill... is a false God. Lets not even get into the killing of women and children... heaven forbid

It wasn't until almost 100 years after Christ's death that anyone who believed in Christ but dismissed the God of the Israelites appeared, and he was rooted in anti-Semitism.

Considering there is nothing of Marcion's work that exists... That is automatically suspicious... All we have is reconstructions of his work... which were made by using the words of people that were already against him.

And either way i don't rely on other peoples work to make the claim that the OT God is an imposter... Everything is there in black and white, but it seems people tend to over look the manical side of the OT God and assume he is the one true God because the OT stories are under the same book cover

I presume that you're not anti-Semitic, in spite of your statement there,

Not at all... People are free to believe what ever they will.... makes no difference to me...

but how do you reconcile Christ's teaching with something that he fairly obviously did not teach?

Its quite easy... You just have to read and compare.... Jesus spoke of forgiveness, love and compassion... the OT God has none of those traits even though those that wrote about him love to make that claim... i see no evidence of it.

And i could technically ask you the exact same question...

How do you claim Jesus was God when he said nothing of the sort, and clearly... even obviously did not say he was God... or teach that he was God?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I couldn't help but repond to this statement...

You are speaking of yourself by the way. We are all cut from the same loaf and to cast judgment on the Lord is to point your finger at your reflection in the mirror

When i look in the mirror i don't see someone that would kill innocent souls... I would not destroy life...

I am not a destroyer my friend, i seek peace and harmony...

I cast judgement on the OT God because he is the original biblical terrorist... a fraud posing as the true God to people that didn't know any better... and i have plenty of threads that back up that statement to prove it...

I might also add.... that if i looked in the mirror and saw anything even close to resembling the OT God... i would have mercy on the world and end my own life.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I couldn't help but repond to this statement...

You are speaking of yourself by the way. We are all cut from the same loaf and to cast judgment on the Lord is to point your finger at your reflection in the mirror

When i look in the mirror i don't see someone that would kill innocent souls... I would not destroy life...

I am not a destroyer my friend, i seek peace and harmony...

I cast judgement on the OT God because he is the original biblical terrorist... a fraud posing as the true God to people that didn't know any better... and i have plenty of threads that back up that statement to prove it...

I might also add.... that if i looked in the mirror and saw anything even close to resembling the OT God... i would have mercy on the world and end my own life.

edit on 5-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

You mean the same God that killed the Pagans sacrificing children to Moloch, only to give them renewed life again in another generation? You mean the same souls that are now alive in a world where billions now live in peace? The same God that took 200 million souls and produced billions of new souls that adhere to some form of moral code and sentience that shares your values of right and wrong? The same God that transformed barbarism in the larger world into a form of light shown to them by the Hebrew people and the Torah. That God? The same one that gives us HIS Spirit to use as our mind as a loan we did not earn? The Father that gives us an inheritance we did not earn ourselves?

You are raising your own sense of moral justice over the God that brought you that sense of moral foundation. This is the very God that allowed this to be written on your heart from generations of life that came before. Your soul has been refined by that very God in by the trials of free will that was a gift to you and everyone else. You must be born again and God took you from law to love. The journey to get there required His harsh choices along the way or we would not arrive at a Holy Consciousness in the end.

You have some imagined fantasy that sentience can be developed in the masses by simply allowing man to be free. If you were God, you would somehow be able to manage free will apart from law and justice. God protects the law abiding, and not the law breakers. For faith to take hold, the law was necessary. You claim God was evil for moving masses of people from one generation to the next. Apart from knowing the living conditions of those generations and the genetic problems caused by the divine beings in Genesis 6, you have no foundation for taking the higher ground. God was working us toward a new genetic direction and his will can only give or receive. Essentially, you are accusing God of taking as a thief.

Prove it. Bring verses to our attention that demonstrate this and I will show you the foundation for this verse: "You must be born again." God cannot take anything that he does not then use to give as a higher gift and calling toward truth in the end. Bring the verses and I will then show you the larger context of what we being demonstrated for those souls later in other generations when God allowed this:

Isaiah 26

But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.

You are speaking from a foundation that ignores the truth and places your moral insight of a few years of life over God's moral understanding as ancient of days. God can only give and receive. To say otherwise fulfills this verse:

1 John 1

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

Walking in the light is a process over countless generations. God leads us there and his providence and choices on that path are HIS to make. We use HIS Spirit, not outs. The choice he makes with that gift are his to make. We are simply using what is given as servants. In the end, we can only receive an inheritance that is not deserved. Grace is unmerited and gives life from the use of GOD's Spirit to us on loan. Our gift is this Spirit as our own in the end if we gain the crown and robe that is imperishable.

By taking the moral high ground against God, you risk losing the possibility of what I show you above. Apart from the God you curse, there are no others that will come to give you the life you do not deserve. There is only one and He is good beyond compare. The one sin that will not be forgiven blasphemy against the Spirit of God. Until we pass from this baptism, we still have time to repent and engage the purpose for being in the water. I share this with you hoping you see the error in your thinking before the final judgment comes. If you are not for God, you are against.

Acts 5

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

No matter what our aim in life, Paul was correct in this. God allows men to live and fail. He also moves them toward a higher calling. In the end, his providence will stand as the will to give and receive. Law stands against those who choose to break it. God is the one they answer to when their activity is of human will.

reply to post by Akragon

IF Jesus was God in the flesh.... And God was apparently here on earth as the christian Faith dictates....

Who was this voice from above that was documented in all these cases?

The voice above was Jesus higher self. His higher self was without flesh.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why does Jesus speak so highly of this "impostor" and say that loving him is the first and greatest of all commandments?

Simply put... he is not talking about the so called God of the OT... The God he speaks of... his father, is kind and merciful, forgiving and generous. The God of the OT makes these claims but shows nothing of the sort.

But you have this convenient detachment... Christ clearly is rooted in Torah based Judaism, he frequently quotes scripture from the Hebrew Bible, he taught it in the synagogues...

And yet he somehow thinks it's all bunk, and that the "real" God isn't the one portrayed in those books? Either you dismiss those claims, or you have to throw out the whole of the New Testament, including the Gospels, and including the things that Jesus said, because he contradicts you all over the place.

So then what are you left with? Your own private "revelation," and nothing but your own word to hang it on.

Considering there is nothing of Marcion's work that exists... That is automatically suspicious... All we have is reconstructions of his work... which were made by using the words of people that were already against him.

Except that, in the instance that we have where we have both the refutation of the early church fathers (the same ones that were against Marcion) and their original, unmodified by any Christian, works, the Gnostic Christians, we can see that the early church fathers were fairly well spot on -- they represented the views and writings of their foes accurately (though they focused a bit heavily on the side of the GCs that taught that sins of the flesh didn't matter, because the body was evil anyway, which was a minority opinion.)

Which makes sense, after all. The critics were contemporary to Marcion and Valentinus, so it's not like people couldn't read Tertullian and then go look at Marcion's actual texts and say "wait a second, he didn't say that!"

How do you claim Jesus was God when he said nothing of the sort, and clearly... even obviously did not say he was God... or teach that he was God?

To adopt that position, one needs to dismiss all of John's Gospel, parts of the other three and the Epistles, and the indisputable fact that early Christians, right after his death, were worshiping him as God. There was no forced deification through the Doctrine of the Trinity -- that was developed centuries later to try and understand why he was so worshipped and what those passages in John meant.

Face it, the earliest Christians, those closest to Christ, believed in a much different and orthodox Christianity than you would prefer them to. It was only in the ensuing centuries that people with a nonexistent connection to Christ or the Apostles, like Marcion, Valentinus or yourself, popped up, saying "I don't like the church, so here's my view, which is obviously correct."

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
Except that, in the instance that we have where we have both the refutation of the early church fathers (the same ones that were against Marcion) and their original, unmodified by any Christian, works, the Gnostic Christians, we can see that the early church fathers were fairly well spot on -- they represented the views and writings of their foes accurately…

Actually, that’s not entirely true!

They weren’t “spot on” as you put it…and they clearly did not “represented the views and writings of their foes accurately”

Prior to the Nag Hammadi library being found and translated, all scholars had to go on, regarding the Christian Gnostics, was the writings of the early church Fathers. But now, more and more Scholars are of the opinion, that the early church fathers, largely skewed the Christian Gnostic beliefs. This opinion is based on more recent appraisals, of the Nag Hammadi texts.

Take a look at what Bart Ehrman has to say…notably at 2:25-2:40





- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Take a look at what Bart Ehrman has to say…notably at 2:25-2:40

I'm well aware of Ehrman's position, as I cited it above -- most Gnostic Christians lived a life of asceticism, but some were, indeed, licentious, and those are the ones who the early church fathers condemned for that behaviour.

reply to post by Joecroft

I just placed an order after watching the trailer for the BBC Documentaries. It's been decades since I've read a decent history of Christianity.

1 "History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years"
Diarmaid MacCulloch; DVD; $71.99

1 "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years"
MacCulloch, Diarmaid; Paperback; $16.50

reply to post by pthena


Ehrman's Lost Christianities is also a very good reference, though I'd shy away from his books that deal with Christ, rather than Christianity, as he tends towards a personal view similar to Schweitzer and the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" movement, so, in books like Misquoting Jesus, one finds Ehrman making some pretty big leaps in logic to say what "Jesus meant", because that's what fits with the Historical Jesus worldview.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

You mean the same God that killed the Pagans sacrificing children to Moloch, only to give them renewed life again in another generation? You mean the same souls that are now alive in a world where billions now live in peace? The same God that took 200 million souls and produced billions of new souls that adhere to some form of moral code and sentience that shares your values of right and wrong?

This is quite outrageous! Do you actually approve of the premise used by the Inquisition (kill the heretic to save his soul, he'll thank you for it in another life)? I'm afraid that not everyone holds your particular view of reincarnation. If you push it to the extreme you just may end up with "Let us now commit mass suicide, we'll be the better for it."

You are raising your own sense of moral justice over the God that brought you that sense of moral foundation. This is the very God that allowed this to be written on your heart from generations of life that came before.

The God of all did in fact raise a moral sense from generation to generation among people in far flung areas of the World, among people who had never heard of Yahweh or Torah. Wisdom did come from the head of Zeus (as Greek mythology has it ). Did the Greeks develop Philosophy ( love of Wisdom ), because of Yahweh and Torah? No, they did not! They recognized that mythology Zeus and the God of all is not the same being. It's all in Plato. When Plato wrote "God" did he mean "Zeus son of Cronos son of Ouranos"? No! Someone before all that.

Some regional god, never heard of until Moses, is not the ground of being, and his book is not the ultimate in wisdom. Philo was the one who came up with the idea that Wisdom=Torah. So the people who take the view that Torah=Wisdom=the ultimate truth are stuck with inventing new and bizarre ways of studying it, with the goal of maintaining the veracity of it no matter how ludicrous that becomes. Read the thing, don't try to use numerology and so-called decryptions to discover the "true meaning". Just read it, then put it on the shelf with other mythologies.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm getting a bit behind on the thread here. It will be a couple of hours before I can concentrate on it.

I read Ehrman's Lost Christianities a couple of years ago. It seemed that he sort of lumped the gnostics together as if they all had the same worldview, which I don't think was the case. I'll have to try and catch up. It looks like Joecroft brought up some issues that I haven't read yet.

Originally posted by pthena
I read Ehrman's Lost Christianities a couple of years ago. It seemed that he sort of lumped the gnostics together as if they all had the same worldview, which I don't think was the case. I'll have to try and catch up. It looks like Joecroft brought up some issues that I haven't read yet.

There were various groups of Gnostics, yes, which Ehrman does point out, and there were subgroups of Gnostic Christians, though most seem to have arisen out of the Valentinus school of thought. But they didn't all hold to the same beliefs, and that is the instance I cited earlier -- some groups were licentious, while others were not, and it was the former who were condemned by the early anti-heretical writers. However, I'd suggest that, while the condemnation is reasonable, declaring it universal (and thus implying that said condemnation is intended to portray the Gnostic Christians immoral across the board,) is not.

Once again, it needs to be noted that, while Ehrman and we have the luxury (such as it is) of looking at those times with the knowledge and methods that we have today, it would be a mistake to put ourselves into the context of those times (something that I find Ehrman frequently guilty of) or taking the people of that time out of it (so not recognizing that Christian misrepresentation of Marcion or Valentinus would be easily countered by the people of that time who supported those views.)

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Acts 5

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

No matter what our aim in life, Paul was correct in this.

What? Are you claiming that Paul was really Gamaliel in disguise? See verse 34. "...a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law..."

reply to post by adjensen


Oh the joys of rational debate....

Before i start my replies i would like to thank everyone who is participating in this discussion...

And now on with the show!!

But you have this convenient detachment... Christ clearly is rooted in Torah based Judaism, he frequently quotes scripture from the Hebrew Bible, he taught it in the synagogues...

Its by no means convienent my friend... Have you actually noticed exactly what he quotes from the Torah?

Truely it isn't much... i would even call it cherry picking honestly... More over i would say he corrected people that read the hebew bible... and didn't teach from it. The authors of the gospels stated he "taught" from the torah... and i fully disagree.

And yet he somehow thinks it's all bunk, and that the "real" God isn't the one portrayed in those books?

I believe there are hints of the true God in those books.... which are fully masked by the "imposter"

Either you dismiss those claims, or you have to throw out the whole of the New Testament, including the Gospels, and including the things that Jesus said, because he contradicts you all over the place.

Incorrect... Unlike Christians i don't subscribe to the All or nothing ideal... As i've said, even your God did some cherry picking in scripture... Fortunatly i do not need to cherry pick, and Jesus does not contradict me.... Nor i him

So then what are you left with? Your own private "revelation," and nothing but your own word to hang it on.

Incorrect... i am left with "the truth, the life, and the way"... which has little to nothing to do with the OT God

Except that, in the instance that we have where we have both the refutation of the early church fathers (the same ones that were against Marcion) and their original, unmodified by any Christian, works, the Gnostic Christians, we can see that the early church fathers were fairly well spot on -- they represented the views and writings of their foes accurately (though they focused a bit heavily on the side of the GCs that taught that sins of the flesh didn't matter, because the body was evil anyway, which was a minority opinion.)

Which makes sense, after all. The critics were contemporary to Marcion and Valentinus, so it's not like people couldn't read Tertullian and then go look at Marcion's actual texts and say "wait a second, he didn't say that!"

Would you trust the words of someone that is openly against your religion or your beliefs?

Think about that for a minute...

To adopt that position, one needs to dismiss all of John's Gospel, parts of the other three and the Epistles, and the indisputable fact that early Christians, right after his death, were worshiping him as God.

The only indisputable fact is that his followers did not understand him....and Jesus was confused and frustrated by this fact.... which can clearly be shown in their books...

There was no forced deification through the Doctrine of the Trinity -- that was developed centuries later to try and understand why he was so worshipped and what those passages in John meant.

I believe that is called blind faith... and not even faith in the one they worship... but faith in the early church fathers which did nothing to earn said trust.

Face it, the earliest Christians, those closest to Christ, believed in a much different and orthodox Christianity than you would prefer them to. It was only in the ensuing centuries that people with a nonexistent connection to Christ or the Apostles, like Marcion, Valentinus or yourself, popped up, saying "I don't like the church, so here's my view, which is obviously correct."

I honestly don't care what early Christians said, even though i do study their material just for fun and my own curiosity.

The same church fathers which are responsible for the death of many many so called "heretics"... and what did i say previously about people (or Gods) that demand death and destruction?