Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A voice from above?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Originally posted by adjensen
Actually, from the timeline it is clear that Valentinus' "wandering off message" happened after he was denied the Bishopric, so the question arises whether said denial was a result of Valentinus' Gnostic beliefs, or whether the beliefs arose as a result of his being rejected for a leadership position. I would come down on the latter, because if he was publicly avowing the claims he later made in the Gospel of Truth, he never would have been seriously considered for that position.



You use the phrase "wandering off message" above, but as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, there was no set specific form of Christianity, back in that time period; there were only competing versions of Christianity. There were many agreements and disagreements ,and it’s not as black and white as most people seem to make out.

And actually, it’s not clear if Valentinus wrote the “Gospel of truth” or not. There’s no conclusive proof of this, it’s only considered most likely by historians, for one reasons or another. So your reason for leaning towards the later, might not be correct.




Originally posted by adjensen
What he came up with was close enough to the previously deemed heretical works of both Marcion and the Docetists that there's pretty much zero chance of him achieving any leadership role, were he openly espousing those beliefs.


Well, in that event, he shouldn’t have even been considered for the role, which is surprising in itself, if his beliefs were well known at that time, and people were opposed to it etc.

And it doesn’t make any logical sense, for him to be even considered for the role of Bishop, if his views and Beliefs were somehow not known!




Originally posted by adjensen
People who erroneously claim that Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas were ever considered for canon don't seem to realize that the orthodox church had been coalescing around the theology which is defined in the four Gospels and Paul's Epistles long before the Gnostic Christians came along, so their beliefs, which significantly varied in numerous aspects from orthodoxy (call it proto-orthodoxy if you like,) would be rejected without argument.



IMO Proto-orthodoxy is how it should be referred too by everyone, because there was no official orthodoxy at that time.

Marcion, as far as I am aware, didn’t accept that the “Gospel of Thomas” should be part of Cannon, but it’s well known that he refused to accept any parts of the Old Testament. He did however accept Corinthians 1 and 2 and Romans and the book of Luke, and a few others…

On the flip side of that, we know that Valentinus accepted only certain parts of the OT, which is one clear feature, which sets him apart from Marcion. I don’t think anyone really knows for sure, where Valentinus stood, regarding the “Gospel of Thomas”




Originally posted by adjensen
orthodox church had been coalescing around the theology which is defined in the four Gospels and Paul's Epistles long before the Gnostic Christians came along,



This is very debatable and also, what Orthodox church, are you talking about???.

Many historians are of the opinion, that first Christians, were the “Gnostic Christians!” And according to Elaine Pagels work, they simply called themselves “Christians”

The 4 Gospels themselves, have been given only rough estimates, of when they were supposedly written. And it’s the same with many other Gnostic texts…For example the “Gospel of Thomas” is dated somewhere between 40 AD – 140 AD…but most Scholars believe that it is written in a style, which is how the original gospels would have looked, long before they were Chronologicalised, and put into a story style format, like we have with the 4 Gospels.


- JC




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
You use the phrase "wandering off message" above, but as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, there was no set specific form of Christianity, back in that time period; there were only competing versions of Christianity. There were many agreements and disagreements ,and it’s not as black and white as most people seem to make out.


Contrary to what Ehman implies, there wasn't a cornucopia of differing views in existence in the First Century -- there was the developing orthodox church, comprised of the churches founded by the apostles (including Paul) and a series of heresies that arose as differences came about in the different churches. So, over a 150 year period from 33AD (or so) until 200AD, there was the constancy of the proto-orthodox church, and then these other groups popping up and then disappearing -- the Ebionites, Docetists, Marcionites, Gnostic Christians, etc.

So, unlike what some might lead you to believe, it wasn't a matter of a "cage match, where differing views all battled out to determine what orthodoxy was", it was more like the ongoing development of orthodoxy, as it fends off these non-orthodox claims.


And actually, it’s not clear if Valentinus wrote the “Gospel of truth” or not. There’s no conclusive proof of this, it’s only considered most likely by historians, for one reasons or another. So your reason for leaning towards the later, might not be correct.


I've never seen any great reason for not thinking that it came from him, and tradition (I think it was Polycarp or Irenaeus) says that he did. Not that it really matters, because we know that the majority of Gnostic Christianity came from the Valentinus school, and the Gospel of Truth is one of their texts.



Well, in that event, he shouldn’t have even been considered for the role, which is surprising in itself, if his beliefs were well known at that time, and people were opposed to it etc.

And it doesn’t make any logical sense, for him to be even considered for the role of Bishop, if his views and Beliefs were somehow not known!


That's my point in saying that I think he started his offshoot church as a result of losing that vote.


Marcion, as far as I am aware, didn’t accept that the “Gospel of Thomas” should be part of Cannon, but it’s well known that he refused to accept any parts of the Old Testament. He did however accept Corinthians 1 and 2 and Romans and the book of Luke, and a few others…


No, he didn't accept Thomas. His cannon consisted of slightly modified versions of Paul's Epistles and a heavily edited version of Luke. Everything else, he rejected.




Originally posted by adjensen
orthodox church had been coalescing around the theology which is defined in the four Gospels and Paul's Epistles long before the Gnostic Christians came along,


This is very debatable and also, what Orthodox church, are you talking about???.


No, I think that the timeline regarding the establishment of Christian Gnostics has been pretty well nailed down, so even if one accepts very late dating of the Gospels, one is still left with those texts, along with Paul's letters, as preceding the GCs by 30-90 years. (Bear in mind that Gnostics, rather than Gnostic Christians, predated Christ by at least 200 years, but we're not talking about them.)

As I wrote above, I consider the orthodox church that which grew from the churches established by the apostles, as well as missionaries from those churches. They held common beliefs, texts and viewed each other as being in communion with them.


Many historians are of the opinion, that first Christians, were the “Gnostic Christians!” And according to Elaine Pagels work, they simply called themselves “Christians”


I have never been impressed with Pagels' work, and I have never seen a reputable NT scholar who said that the first Christians were Gnostics. We don't need to get into details as to why I think that impossible, but you're going to need to cite a source that says that.


For example the “Gospel of Thomas” is dated somewhere between 40 AD – 140 AD…but most Scholars believe that it is written in a style, which is how the original gospels would have looked, long before they were Chronologicalised, and put into a story style format, like we have with the 4 Gospels.


The problem with Thomas is that it is a forgery, and is written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said, because real sayings are jumbled up with things he could not have said, because they are derived from Valentinus beliefs. See my earlier thread on Thomas here.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1

"not fully human" is a horrible propaganda lie. The purpose is to dehumanize a group of people in order to make the war mongers seem "okay". That's all it is. Where is this done? In the OT, Talmud, Kabbalah. Who are the Amalekites today according to the propagandists? Palestinians and any one else standing in the way of Zionist hegemony. Guess what? I am an Amalekite according to their definition.


Ex 17:14 Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky.” 15 Moses built an altar, and called its name Yahweh our Banner. 16 He said, “Yah has sworn: ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’”

Deuteronomy 25:17 Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt; 18 how he met you by the way, and struck the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he didn’t fear God. 19 Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky; you shall not forget.


Remember to forget the Amalekites. David wiped them all out. Shouldn't they have been gone then? No, Hezekiah wiped them all out too. But wait, Mordechai wiped them out too. But wait! Amalekites must still be destroyed today.


Yitzchak Ginsburgh
In 1994, Ginsburgh received widespread criticism for his article "Baruch Hagever"[17] in which he praised Baruch Goldstein who had massacred 29 Arab worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.[18][19] Rabbi Ginsburgh wrote that it is possible to view Baruch Goldstein's act as following five Halachic principles, namely "sanctification of God's name", "saving life" (referring to testimonies that he had allegedly received regarding a planned Arab massacre of Jews[20]), "revenge", "eradication of the seed of Amalek" and "war".[21] Motti Inbari commented on this:

In his writings, Ginzburg gives prominence to Halachic and kabbalistic approaches that emphasize the distinction between Jew and non-Jew (Gentile), imposing a clear separation and hierarchy in this respect. He claims that while the Jews are the Chosen People and were created in God's image, the Gentiles do not have this status.... Ginzburg stated that, on the theoretical level, if a Jew requires a liver transplant to survive, it would be permissible to seize a Gentile and take their liver forcefully. From this point only a small further step is required to actively encourage and support the killing of non-Jews, as Ginzburg did in the case of Goldstein

I am a Gentile. I do not support Jewish hegemony. I am Amalek. Should I be killed for being less than human? Yahweh thinks so.

So when it comes to Yahweh and me, I'd say we have some very serious personal issues.
edit on 7-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
It is believed by most of the Christian faith that Jesus was "God in the flesh" as John stated in the first chapter of his gospel.

So i have a question for those of the christian faith to ponder...

There is three instances in the gospels where a "voice" from above was documented... The first instance comes in Matthew 3 at the first meeting of John the baptist, and Jesus...

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

.............

This verse can also be cross referenced in Mark 1...

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

........

And in Luke 3

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
.............

The second instance comes later in the book of Matthew in chapter 17 during the "transfiguation"... witnessed by Peter, James, and John his brother...


4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

...................

Which can also be cross referenced with in Mark 9

5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

.............

And in Luke 9

33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

..............

Clearly these books all agree with each other...

Now the final instance is found in the book of John...

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

...........................

So here is the question....

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?



Please discuss rationally everyone...

I look forward to your replies







These are instances of the trinity of God, in the OT in some verses the word God is translated Elohim which is the purl form for God meaning Godhead which is used in the verse let us (Elohim) create man in our image.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



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

Let me say my view, 'any God that commands his children to kill... is a false God OR the book which says that is false/corrupted/altered.
.
So according to me, the God of OT is the God of Jesus pbuh and everything that exists but He dint say all the things that are in OT.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



Of all the people on ATS, you are the one person that might just get this. You are so close and I know enough about you that there may be a glimmer of hope you will understand what I will say here. I have hinted at it hoping you could get it from the bones I have thrown you. One more time. This time, more clarity.

Jesus is this:

1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


Question...

Why do you say "Jesus is this" and then procede to use a quote from someone who had no actual contact with Jesus... Did not know him... and blatantly lies about him?

Btw the lie would be making Jesus equal to God, which HE never claimed.... ever


Creation of Paradise Genesis 1 by the Elohim.


Elohim is what in your opinion?

I've heard God, I've heard angels....


Mankind - The ones created by the Lord in Genesis 2. Adam after the fall.


The concept of a "war in heaven" is illogical... And i don't believe the story of Adam and eve for a second...

Why would an angel (satan) a created being who must be highly intelligent attempt to overthrow God?


You now have the order. Consider what it means that we are cut from ONE loaf. We are all part of the Lord's Spirit and ultimately God's (Father's) Spirit where the Son comes from.


No arguement there... but the OT God is not the Father of Creation...


When we return to your version, you are condemning the evil God as you say. The one that gave you life and saved you along the way from the error.


incorrect.... Please refer to the above statement...


The LAST Adam. You are condemning yourself. We are all cut from the same loaf and the Bible is OUR chronicle.


Incorrect.... again refer to the previous two statements... The bible is a book written by men about what they believed was the true God, but it wasn't... it was an imposter posing as God to those that didn't know any better...


Adam is the first soul and died on a cross for the error. You are Him in multiplicity and he died for you, willingly giving His soul to produce and raise ours.


Adam was crucified?

Thats new to me....


When he says, "I and the Father are one," what does this suggest.


He And God are the same essence.... The spirit of God dwells within him... NOT Jesus is God in the flesh


When he is called the last Adam, what does this suggest?


Paul was tampering with scripture?


When he suffered for us, what does this suggest?


He came to show us the path.... and we didn't understand what he was saying... and we (humans) killed him because we lacked understanding of him. Even his closest followers didn't understand him... and that can be shown through out the gospels... Because of the "hardness of their hearts" perhaps?


When it says he is the LORD and first soul created in the image of God, what does this tell you?


More of Pauls doing i would assume...


When it states clearly that we originate with fallen Adam and rise with Christ, what does this tell you about the pattern you follow by following Adam as he is the firstfruits of what we become through HIM?


Since i don't believe in the story of Adam and eve... this story means nothing more then the myth of Zeus, or apollo... etc etc...

edit on 8-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon

I found mention of another instance of a voice from heaven. I read the story about a year ago, then forgot about it. But I started reading The Fourth Gospel and The Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther and the Gospel of John, John Bowman.

page 15, 16

One remembers how R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, the old traditionalist at the end of the 1st century A.D., was overruled by R. Akiba and his colleagues in his opinion regarding the possibility of a purification of the 'Aknai Tannur (oven). R. Eliezer called on the course of nature to reverse to prove his point was right. He called for a heavenly voice to witness to the correctness of his opinions. The course of nature was reversed;[pthena note: evidently gravity was suspended ] the heavenly voice testified; but R. Akiba was not impressed. R. Joshua b. Hananiah said that the Law was not in heaven, but is with men.


The point I take from this, is that if the spirit of God had descended upon Jesus, as John the Baptist testified as a sign, then the voice from heaven is some one else. That's why my current theory regarding the voice is that that was part and parcel of the temptation of Jesus. What was he tempted to do? He was tempted to take that "you are my son" as an endorsement to claim the throne as king(Davidic Messiah). "Son of God" is a title that kings use for themselves as claim for divine right of kings.

The verse in John where the voice is heard by his disciples, Jesus pretty much said, to paraphrase in my own theory, "I didn't need to hear that!"



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


The bible is a book written by men about what they believed was the true God, but it wasn't... it was an imposter posing as God to those that didn't know any better...

This is a brilliant thread! I'd give it another flag if I could!

Orthodox people, Jewish and Christian like to claim that "God is incomprehensible", then turn around and set up all kinds of limiting definitions for God. Just how ridiculous is that!

I may be a bit retarded when it comes to spiritual matters, but I understand Yahweh completely. Why? Because he only really exists in the book, completely defined, with all his thoughts and motives completely revealed, no mystery whatsoever. That should be proof enough that he is not God.

What about that book? Jesus said, and people like to quote this verse:

Matthew 5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

It is quoted to give some sort of blanket approval of the book. But wait? Does any one even have the book? I don't think so. Exhibit A:


‘When Moses ascended into heaven, he saw God occupied in making little crowns for the letters of the Torah. Upon his inquiry as to what these might be for, he received the answer, "There will come a man, named Akiva ben Joseph, who will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law." Moses' request to be allowed to see this man was granted; but he became much dismayed as he listened to Akiva's teaching; for he could not understand it’ (Men. 29b). This story gives a picture of Akiva's activity as the father of Talmudical Judaism.
Akiva ben Joseph

Not only have all those morphology changes been made to the book after the time of Jesus, but even Moses can't understand it his own self. So here we are with Akiva's book. But thats okay for Talmudic Judaism. And for some bizarre reason it's okay for Christian Orthodoxy also? Somehow, I think Jesus might just disagree.

Akiba was the person who got the book of Esther placed into the canon. A book of unlimited killing as revenge and so-called self defense. You know, all those Amalekites who must be genocided from generation to generation.

What did Jesus have to say about new stuff coming along?


Matthew 7: 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

Their fruits. Akiva sure seemed like a holy man. So holy that Elijah himself could carry his dead body without being defiled by it! Yet, he supported bar Kochba as Messiah and king. That brought the second destruction of Jerusalem, and the final Roman banning of Jews from Jerusalem. He gave us Esther, and the renewal of Yahweh ordered killing of Amalek, the fruit of which is general ethnic cleansing in Palestine, including such atrocities as the Hebron massacre that I referenced in a previous post.

Akiva gave to the Christians the OT canon, with all those jots and tittles of his own devising.
edit on 8-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Who is tampering with this verse then?

"You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness of me" (Jn 5:39).

Also, it is very clearly outlined HERE.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Akragon
 


Who is tampering with this verse then?

"You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness of me" (Jn 5:39).

Also, it is very clearly outlined HERE.



Good question my friend... a star for you!

Truely the scriptures speak of his comming... i've never denied that...

But...

Notice Jesus said "the scriptures bear witness of me"... Truth

He does not say anything like "the scriptures are inspired from God"...

I've even heard my dear friend who's name i will not give state bluntly... "The entire book (bible) is about Jesus"

Which is simply not true at all...

Christians seach for Jesus and God in the OT... but i tell you, God is not in a book, and the OT God is not the true Father of Creation... This i KNOW... But who am i?

Simply put, I AM no one.... Just a man... but i've been shown the truth in my search...

And very little is found within the books of the OT...

IF you want truth, go to the source of Truth within said book...

And im sure you know where that lies

By the way, im working on another thread as i write this...

This thread and some of the replies inspired me to write another...

Im sure i'll see you, and many other Christians there

edit on 8-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



This is a brilliant thread! I'd give it another flag if I could!

Orthodox people, Jewish and Christian like to claim that "God is incomprehensible", then turn around and set up all kinds of limiting definitions for God. Just how ridiculous is that!


Thank you my friend... Im glad some people enjoy my threads


They only have what is in their book... and they are told the book is the word of God by people that claim to understand God. Unfortunatly if you're a part of a church or "organized religion" you go by what your leaders tell you...


I may be a bit retarded when it comes to spiritual matters, but I understand Yahweh completely. Why? Because he only really exists in the book, completely defined, with all his thoughts and motives completely revealed, no mystery whatsoever. That should be proof enough that he is not God.


You are not "retarded" in spiritual matters... All that needs to be known is within... We all have the ability to understand spiritual matters, but even as you said... many are blinded by their understanding of "the book"...


What about that book? Jesus said, and people like to quote this verse:

Matthew 5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.


Do you believe he meant the law of the Torah?

Or perhaps he meant the laws he gave which have always been in effect? ... The LAW of Love


It is quoted to give some sort of blanket approval of the book.


He did not mean it as an approval of the OT or Torah...

edit on 8-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


Do you believe he meant the law of the Torah?

Or perhaps he meant the laws he gave which have always been in effect? ... The LAW of Love

I think that he was referencing stuff that he really shouldn't have even known about ( pre knowledge?) How would he have known what Akiva and the other Tannaim would do in his future time? There wasn't even a canon yet. How did he know about the Massoretic diacritic markings? Was he mistaken, or did he know and was making a parody of the canon that didn't exist yet?

I don't know, it seems Jesus has more mystery about him than the OT god. But anyway, instead of pulling out a pen, and making changes to the text, he just said things in words that people could hear. "You have heard it said...but I tell you..." he was directly challenging the other teachers who were quoting from the scriptures they had at the time.

My gut reaction to " until all things are accomplished." is horror, because I am well aware of all the horrendous dooms pronounced in the book. I feel like falling down and asking that the cup be taken away. I think it can be taken away. All that war and disaster can and should be averted.


John 13: 31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "“Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. 32 If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him immediately. 33 Little children, I will be with you a little while longer. You will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you can’t come,’ so now I tell you. 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”"

I suspect that Jesus is greater than Moses. I believe that where Love is in conflict with Moses (the book) that Love ought to be allowed to triumph.

John16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever kills you will think that he offers service to God. 3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.

You have heard that you must ever remember to seek out Amalek for destruction, that it is a mitzvah (service to god), but I tell you, forget about it, you don't have to genocide anyone.
edit on 8-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



I think that he was referencing stuff that he really shouldn't have even known about ( pre knowledge?) How would he have known what Akiva and the other Tannaim would do in his future time? There wasn't even a canon yet. How did he know about the Massoretic diacritic markings? Was he mistaken, or did he know and was making a parody of the canon that didn't exist yet?


IF he existed before his time on earth would he not have "pre knowledge"?

He was the Son of God after all... He did make that claim specifically..


I don't know, it seems Jesus has more mystery about him than the OT god.


Not to everyone...



But anyway, instead of pulling out a pen, and making changes to the text, he just said things in words that people could hear. "You have heard it said...but I tell you..." he was directly challenging the other teachers who were quoting from the scriptures they had at the time.


Which is why i disagree with the writers of the gospels when they say "he taught from scripture"... i believe he corrected people that read scripture available at the time...



My gut reaction to " until all things are accomplished." is horror, because I am well aware of all the horrendous dooms pronounced in the book. I feel like falling down and asking that the cup be taken away. I think it can be taken away. All that war and disaster can and should be averted.


Jesus said there IS a world to come... Which means everyone will make it there. Unfortunatly i believe not everyone will be happy once they get there... or return, depending on your view i suppose



I suspect that Jesus is greater than Moses.


I don't think one can compare the two... I've heard theories that Moses was actually killed by his own generals... He was not well liked by all that is for sure... but surely his actions were not his fault... he was following his God...


I believe that where Love is in conflict with Moses (the book) that Love ought to be allowed to triumph.


That is truth...


John16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever kills you will think that he offers service to God. 3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.


You have heard that you must ever remember to seek out Amalek for destruction, that it is a mitzvah (service to god), but I tell you, forget about it, you don't have to genocide anyone


As it says... they did not know him...

Let me ask... what is your favorite passage in the bible?

IF i show you mine, perhaps you will understand my postion on this matter a little better...

And keep in mind what he said....

They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me...

Edit: Bah it won't let me post it right...

www.biblegateway.com...

Please read Luke 6: 20 - 38 when you have time of course



edit on 8-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Jesus said there IS a world to come...
Age, which some versions translate as "world".
I don't think Jesus meant that we are going to a different world but he was initiating a new age through his teachings.
Apparently people back then had various views on what was coming and Jesus sort of went along with what they said, without correcting them so much on the particulars of their specific theory but by way of what the morality should be concerning the material of the topic under discussion.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 




But...

Notice Jesus said "the scriptures bear witness of me"... Truth

He does not say anything like "the scriptures are inspired from God"...


He was confronted by Satan and used the OT to confirm his one reasoning behind his choices:

Matthew 4:4
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘a Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ ”

7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”

10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ ”

As a Hebrew, who was He referring to?

And here:

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).

And here: 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).

Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).

He may as well be speaking to you here. I am your friend and what I am showing you is true. Not only is it true, so is the OT.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


IF he existed before his time on earth would he not have "pre knowledge"?

He was the Son of God after all... He did make that claim specifically..

Sons of God seem to be people who are kind to the ungrateful and wicked, like the Most High. (Luke 6:25).That's a tough act to follow. Aside from that "Son of God" can also mean a mere kingly messiah. Son of man however, is a very exalted title that Jesus applied to himself.

If he represents all people, as the title would indicate, then I must assume that he can go talk to any body he wants to. Time and distance wouldn't be a hindrance.

That's why I'm tempted to say that John 10:16 is my favorite, due to the personal relevance, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice." What jumps to mind though is a passage from Matthew:


1 He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. 2 Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "“Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you.”"

3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.”

4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "“Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...”" (then he said to the paralytic), "“Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house.”"

7 He arose and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Age, which some versions translate as "world".
I don't think Jesus meant that we are going to a different world but he was initiating a new age through his teachings.


Be it an "age" or a world... the point is, there is life after death...and likely before birth... Which is interesting when the following verses are taken into consideration...

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven


reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



He was confronted by Satan and used the OT to confirm his one reasoning behind his choices:

Matthew 4:4
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘a Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ ”

7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”

10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ ”


Yes he does... but again, he doesn't use the full verse from the OT only a part of it... IF he is speaking to people that only know these "scriptures" he has to relate to what they know from said scriptures.


As a Hebrew, who was He referring to?


His Father...

Do you believe he is speaking of himself?


And here:

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished


What Law?


And here: 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)


Keep reading....

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Do you believe Scripture can not be broken?


Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).

He may as well be speaking to you here. I am your friend and what I am showing you is true. Not only is it true, so is the OT.


I did say that there is "hints" of the true God within the OT... but i was immediately corrected by another member so i conceded the point... but i do believe there are "hints" of the true God within the OT but they are mostly masked by "the imposter" which i speak of.



edit on 8-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Jesus Christ was God because the Father Himself was in Him,

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me:Text I proceeded and come forth from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me. neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

He was in Heaven long before coming to Bethlehem, notice when you read in the old testament how many times it states "God of hosts" or Lord of hosts", that is His, the Fathers Redeemer He pulled out of Himself that we might be saved.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

He too could proclaim "I am the first", how can that be? It can only be if the Father and Son are really one. First means before any other.

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Yes truly the one and only God was in Him.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


You could have just said na ah and moved on.
Sorry I hit you in a sensitive spot.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1

But "na ah" is such an inadequate answer. I was using the question as an opportunity to grandstand from my soapbox.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join