A voice from above?

reply to post by pthena

The Trinitarians also draw that distinction.

Which sect?

Trinitarians believe Jesus IS God... I see a seperation they do not... The verses that say I AM are not ment to mean I AM GOD... Jesus would have made that statement if it were true... but he did not, ever

OR

I and my Father are one... They take this as saying "one and the same" which is not said either.... Jesus is saying he is the essence of God... They have the same motivation, or even that Jesus knows what God would do/say as he is his "representitive"

From Thomas you get none of the Messiah as Davidic ruler sitting on a throne, which that voice would imply

Yet you said in a previous reply that aspect of Messiah isn't important... which i agree with

I regard Psalm 2 as the heart and soul of Messianic Zionism, which I don't approve of whatsoever.

I don't understand the millions of labels people give their beliefs... I suppose that is a by-product of "organized" religion...

It was a different thread where I mentioned Jesus saying "don't swear at all. Ye or nay is sufficient. Anything else comes from evil"

I don't understand...

God is not on a throne, and neither is the Son of God (The Son of Man). There are no thrones.(in my humble opinion)

I agree...

Outdating understanding... who sits on a throne these days?

Perhaps one that holds himself higher then all else?

Doesn't sound like anything Jesus taught though... Remember "the first will be last"?

reply to post by Akragon

I added some to my last post.

I don't understand the millions of labels people give their beliefs... I suppose that is a by-product of "organized" religion...

Yes, a by-product of organized religion. I made a statement about baptism once when I was a Sunday School teacher. A group of people confronted me and a lady asked, "Do you believe in the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration? And I said, "What?" It turned out that about a decade before that the whole denomination had split over the issue, the "other side" held a belief with that particular label.

Messianic Zionism is a label of my own coinage, or understanding at least. In Judaism, it means, Davidic King sitting on a throne in Jerusalem, ruling over the Gentiles, with the god YHWH in his holy temple on the next hill over.

In Christianity it means Davidic Messiah aka Son of God, sitting on a throne in heaven next to God on a throne ruling over the World. At some future date these thrones will descend from heaven to land in Jerusalem.

What is the difference between Judaic Zionism and Christian Zionism? Nothing. But what did Jesus say?

John 4:20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, "“Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father. 22 You worship that which you don’t know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshippers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”"

What does spirit and truth have to do with mountains and cities and thrones? NOTHING!!

reply to post by pthena

Yes, a by-product of organized religion. I made a statement about baptism once when I was a Sunday School teacher. A group of people confronted me and a lady asked, "Do you believe in the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration? And I said, "What?" It turned out that about a decade before that the whole denomination had split over the issue, the "other side" held a belief with that particular label.

I had to look that up...

Messianic Zionism is a label of my own coinage, or understanding at least. In Judaism, it means, Davidic King sitting on a throne in Jerusalem, ruling over the Gentiles, with the god YHWH in his holy temple on the next hill over.

In Christianity it means Davidic Messiah aka Son of God, sitting on a throne in heaven next to God on a throne ruling over the World. At some future date these thrones will descend from heaven to land in Jerusalem.

Interesting...

remember that bit about not swearing you mentioned earlier?

YHWH needs a temple.... but does "God" need one?

Mat 5
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

But what did Jesus say?

John 4:20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, "“Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father. 22 You worship that which you don’t know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshippers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”"


What does spirit and truth have to do with mountains and cities and thrones? NOTHING!!

If you read matthew 6 you'll see God wants a personal relationship with his children... Not a public one...

If you read matthew 6 you'll see God wants a personal relationship with his children... Not a public one...

Hey look... I have an echo!!

reply to post by adjensen



Sorry for the delay….

Originally posted by Joecroft
If Theudus was a disciple of Paul, and Velantinus was a disciple of Theudus, then this is evidence, which adds weight to Paul either being a Gnostic Christian himself, or at least accepting certain elements, of Christian Gnosticism.

Originally posted by adjensen
No it isn't. "Evidence" would be the writings of Paul, not the writings of someone who claimed to follow someone who claimed to follow Paul. That would be the old "appeal to authority" -- saying that unorthodox views were taught by someone a hundred years in the grave who can't defend himself.

What I mentioned above is only just a part of the “evidence” that I was talking about. And it’s the same with Paul writings, they are only part evidence as well.

And regarding those that can’t defend themselves, what about all the Gnostic Christians that the RCC tortured and murdered, who can’t defend themselves either… (Rhetorical question)

Originally posted by adjensen
Again, Gnosticism existed in the time of Paul, Christian Gnosticism did not.

Like I said in my last post, this is a topic, which is still being researched and debated today… there is no conclusive proof for what you have stated above…

Anyway this has gotten way off topic…and should be discussed on another thread…


- JC

reply to post by pthena



Sorry for the delay…

Originally posted by Joecroft
I’m curious though…what makes you trust Galatians, over the others?

Originally posted by pthena
It was written in the passion of the moment. That moment being that some people were attempting to convince Gentiles to follow the Law (as in Torah). Paul was saying "forget about it", it didn't do the Jews much good, it certainly doesn't bring life. "Now look", says Paul, "If there's a single scrap of good to be derived from the Law, you've already got it in the simple rule of love your brother."

Well said. This is how I believe Christianity developed, with discussions between early Christian gentiles and Jewish believers who were both trying to piece together, what it meant to believe in Jesus. Although I personally don’t believe that they got everything right, not even Paul.

And regarding the Laws, Jesus repeatedly states that one should keep the commandments and then there is Paul who states, in Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Seems like a contradiction to me…


And regarding your other comments about the Ten Commandments being given by Angels, this would fit nicely with the notion, that “no man hath seen God at any time!”


- JC

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Akragon
Well thats really up for debate... Many scholars believe Thomas to be dated in the 3rd or 4th century... On the other hand i've also heard some say it was written in the 1st century, perhaps even before the gospels in the bible...

Well, a few scholars have stated, that the style in which the Gospel of Thomas is written in, is most likely how the original Gospels would have looked, prior to any formatting, such as being put into a Chronological story style, like we have with the 4 Canonical Gospels.

Originally posted by Akragon
I personally don't believe Thomas is a forgery... but i've heard Adjenson say it was before, which is why i said that... He believes there was malicious intentions in calling the text "Thomas"... Basically trying to give the gospel more weight then it should have... i don't believe that though

Neither do I…

Thanks for thoughts…

And sorry for the delay…


- JC