How Father teaches all so that all may learn

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

17-18 years actually...

He debated with the pros at age 12...

Now I've heard that he just remained in his trade as a carpenter and simply stuck around his family during those years...

I find that hard to believe personally

edit on 5-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

His family was afraid of him. Joseph stuck around and built bridges for Herod..the debacle debates at age 12 with the Rabbi/Pharasee at the temple mount within earshot of anyone listening in, thats another story. Swiffed off to Qumran. From there with his 'godfather' the merchant Joseph of Aramethiea--to the orient lands and teachings unknown to this public audience.

reply to post by windword


I have heard that actually...

Though it seems that all through out the past 2000 years people have made sensational claims about him and where he's been...

Stories about him pop up out of nowhere all the time, and are usually based on a piece of gnostic scripture that isn't well known....

for example...

Druid Mysteries and the Dawn of Christianity (1998), which was the basis of the documentary titled And Did Those Feet (2009). Strachan believed Jesus may have travelled to Britain to study with the Druids.

I haven't read it... not my style of reading, but from the title I would assume this was based on the gospel of peter or philip ... very loosely based that is...

This idea that gnostic's believed Jesus didn't leave footprints is bunk as far as I've found... I can only assume this is a lie propagated by the PTB in the early church.

but again this is only an assumption based on the title of a book I haven't read...

So it means nothing

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Akragon

 

Did you know that some say he went to Britiannia, and some link the first Christians of the Roman Christian scourge to have been Brittanians?

Joseph of Arametheia was a metalurgy merchant refined products TIN he brought Jesus along on those voyages to Britian because there lie the location one of his major exports. You are right on target here; if you go further why the Templars evacuated to Scottland after the purge of their there estates, money holdings in France approx 1309?

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

17-18 years actually...

He debated with the pros at age 12...

Now I've heard that he just remained in his trade as a carpenter and simply stuck around his family during those years...

I find that hard to believe personally

edit on 5-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

His family was afraid of him. Joseph stuck around and built bridges for Herod..the debacle debates at age 12 with the Rabbi/Pharasee at the temple mount within earshot of anyone listening in, thats another story. Swiffed off to Qumran. From there with his 'godfather' the merchant Joseph of Aramethiea--to the orient lands and teachings unknown to this public audience.

I would like to read those "teachings"

any links?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

17-18 years actually...

He debated with the pros at age 12...

Now I've heard that he just remained in his trade as a carpenter and simply stuck around his family during those years...

I find that hard to believe personally

edit on 5-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

His family was afraid of him. Joseph stuck around and built bridges for Herod..the debacle debates at age 12 with the Rabbi/Pharasee at the temple mount within earshot of anyone listening in, thats another story. Swiffed off to Qumran. From there with his 'godfather' the merchant Joseph of Aramethiea--to the orient lands and teachings unknown to this public audience.

I would like to read those "teachings"

any links?

No and Im not sure there are supposed to be oddly; let me just run real quick and ask.

reply to post by Akragon


Yeah, I was looking to watch the documentary, "Did Those Feet" on YouTube or Hulu, but it's only available in DVD.

This idea that gnostic's believed Jesus didn't leave footprints is bunk as far as I've found... I can only assume this is a lie propagated by the PTB in the early church.

Jesus didn't leave footprints, as in a paper trail, or as in, because of his resurrection, he was to light to touch the ground, or as in, "those foot prints in the sand our yours, fool!"? LOL

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Fascinating stuff. I would also like to know more about the Druids influence in early Christianity. I have heard that the word "Christ" was actually a carry over from them, although I can't document that right now.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Deetermined

 

So says you.... and your saviour apparently... That Paul guy

Talk about not understanding some people. You want to use scripture to back up arguments as long as they don't include words by Paul or John and you complain about the words of Jesus.

So you haven't read Ezekiel... you're probably better off...

You might have missed one of my previous posts regarding "Son of man".

In thirty two cases the phrase appears in intermediate plural form "sons of men", i.e. human beings.[1] As generally interpreted by Jews, denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty.

en.wikipedia.org...

Which means you go against your own theology... Jesus came for a reason and died for a reason according to Christian ideals... By saying "he would have stayed" you reject that concept that his life "and death" had a reason...

I don't go against theology. Jesus was clearly telling them that things would have been different if the Jews hadn't rejected Him. Yes, the plan was already in place, so Jesus played it out. That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a different plan if God had wanted it to be different.

You have to ask yourself , why didn't Jesus and the rest of the disciples preach to the Gentiles before the death of Jesus if he planned on saving the whole world from the beginning? It could have been a different scenario. Yes, this was the plan, but it doesn't look like a plan that couldn't have gone another way if God wanted it to either.

Why is it that you attempt to tell others what Jesus actually meant... as if you know better then HE did?

Just trying to help explain to those that don't understand what they read, like you.

You're just adding your own theology to your replies.... which has more holes then actual Christian doctrine...

According to you, Christian doctrine has more holes than not, so I don't know why you care, come to these threads, or bother to reply at all.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

I didn't expect you to understand.

You have to go to the meetings and get full of 'the spirit' listening to some charismatic preacher, before you can "understand".
That's a cult.
Sorry.

edit on 5-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

That's the best you can come up with?

No, that's not how I get my understanding, but it looks like you may need some help in deciphering the Old Testament and the book of Revelation. It would improve your level of understanding of the New Testament tremendously.

I think of "God", as being outside of time. A creative force that begat many creative forces, however placing them inside of time.

When I read the Bible I find that I have different interpretations and understanding as to what it means to ME. I think it is because my soul development/evolution is different than another.

There is no right or wrong way as a collective because there are many truths, yet none seem to convey the entire truth. Man can be very deceiving and with any writings, there is a big chance the writer of any text will convey his own bias within and abroad to persuade the reader to believe as they believe.

Deciphering for me, will not be the same for you, and so on.

When I read , "Because God wanted it that way", I tend to have a belief system that pushes that type of belief back out. I reject the notion entirely. To blame good or bad on Gods Plan, makes me feel as though I have zero free will, which in my minds eye is not the "truth" per my belief system.

We all have a creative will and create reality at will. This is the creative side of our creator for which we all have within us. Does the creative force really use us like puppets? I just don't believe that to be true.

Its unsettling to hear or watch one say to another that their belief is wrong. How do we really know for sure? All we have to go on is what we have learned thus far on Earth and what we believe to be logical per our belief system that has been created since our inception.

When I ponder my purpose on Earth I see that we live and learn. We strive for perfection in an imperfect world surrounded by people who do not care about anyone, not even them self. This to me, feels wrong.

Cooperation with our own species whether it be inbred with giants or angels..... or not... we still need to find within our hearts compassion for another that will lead to cooperation.

reply to post by Deetermined

That's the best you can come up with?

I'm not trying to beat you up or somehow "win".
I'm trying to force you to come to grips with what the real source of your cultish beliefs are.
Obviously, to an objective observer, the source is a cult.
Somehow you don't see that.
Apparently that is part of the brainwashing, the delusion that you came to these conclusions in a natural and logical sort of way.
You have to ask yourself, "who benefits", by you holding these beliefs.
Also, who has the money to finance the promotion of these beliefs through foundations that provide "education" to religious organizations and individual ministers.
One answer satisfies both questions:
The so-called state illegally occupying Palestine and merely calling itself Israel.
Normal Christians understand that they, the church of Jesus, is Israel, the "God's Chosen People" according to the Bible.
Do a word search using that term (in quotes, in the above sentence), and you find it only comes up in the New Testament, and referring to Christians.

. . . you may need some help in deciphering the Old Testament and the book of Revelation. It would improve your level of understanding of the New Testament tremendously.

I study those already. I don't believe in a particular group that has miraculously "deciphered" Revelation, and I do not believe that the OT explains the NT, especially Revelation, which scholars believe is more about the current beliefs of the day and that can be found in the extra-biblical writings that were its contemporary works.
Gone are the days (in the eyes of serious scholars) when it is thought that having the OT in hand is all you need to understand Revelation. I don't think that it ever will be completely because of the permanent loss of some of its source material.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I'm trying to force you to come to grips with what the real source of your cultish beliefs are.

Obviously, to an objective observer, the source is a cult.

Somehow you don't see that. Apparently that is part of the brainwashing, the delusion that you came to these conclusions in a natural and logical sort of way.

Dewey, I could easily say that you belong to a cult because your beliefs don't fall in line with the Bible as a whole, including the New Testament, but that's not going to get anyone anywhere.

My conclusions are all logical based on the scriptures I've posted.

If you want to counter that argument, then dig up some scripture to counter it.

Show me where Jesus condemned the Old Testament instead of telling everyone that he came to fulfill it.

It's that simple.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Here, Dewey, maybe this link will help you understand how and how often the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other.

www.biblestudy.org...

reply to post by Deetermined

Here, Dewey, maybe this link will help you understand how and how often the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other.

Obviously the OT and the NT are "related".
But, the OT does not interpret the NT, it is the other way around, the NT interprets certain parts of the OT in a new light, the light of the reality of the completion of the fulfillment of the promises behind all the rhetoric in the Prophets of the OT.
You can't work it the other way around, where you take obscure passages from the OT that, taken out of context, look like prophecies, and use that to explain something equally obscure in the NT.
What you have been subjected to by your cult is cherry picking from the OT, verses when put together in a certain order after being taken from completely unrelated sections, look like a new prophecy, which just happens to fit a political agenda alive and underway today.
This is just manipulation on an extreme scale, and something usually only successful in people who are somehow at least partially mentally impaired or just disadvantaged in some other way.
The pragmatic methodology behind this is something found generally in politics in the US, which is that you can write off the intelligent people as irrelevant, and just concentrate on the dumber segment of society to get raw numbers to go along, which is the important thing in a democracy.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Needless to say, it's obvious that you can't come up with an argument, so you're grasping at straws.

Moving along now.

reply to post by jhill76


Why can't you? Having trouble expanding your mind or something?

reply to post by Deetermined

. . . you can't come up with an argument . . .

There isn't any argument for me to argue against.
You are just reciting so many cult slogans with nothing to back them up except some nonsensical challenge to "prove" them wrong.
Well I don't have to since the fact is that you follow a predictable line, to anyone familiar with your cult's teachings, and they are not what normal Christianity believes in.
So really it is up to you to support your claims, which you can't, but can only offer empty rhetoric.

Jesus obviously did destroy the law, regardless of what you may believe that Jesus meant when he said he was not here to "destroy the Law and the Prophets".
He was talking about the implied promise of a Messiah that can be gleaned from the Law and the Prophets. He came to fulfill those, but in doing so, he did "destroy" them in that they met with the thing that they existed to point forward to.
What your cult does is to pick things out of the Old Testament and say, "Here is something that was not fulfilled, and since Jesus did not destroy the Prophets, then it stands to reason that this verse has to be yet fulfilled, and we're here to tell you exactly how God has to fulfill it."
That was the same mistake that the Jews made that led to them murdering Jesus.
Your cult exists to give cover for and to justify the acts of Jesus' murderers.

Thoughts....

Jesus came to fulfill the law.

Jesus came to not bring peace, but a sword.

Jesus came to divide mother against son and daughter against father.

2000 years later we can look around to and fro.... and ask..... Did it work?

I guess he did fulfill the law.

Is it a "good" law?

What did he say he will do when he comes back? Is this a more peaceful prophecy? If he were to come again and fill each soul with truth, have heaven on Earth then the law would probably not be kept, but a new one created..??

reply to post by MamaJ

. . . If he were to come again and fill each soul with truth . . .

Have like a TV show better than Oprah and Dr. Phil?
No, I don't think Jesus needs to do that.
The spirit is available now.
Jesus said, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world"
That means he is here with us now spiritually, and we lack nothing.
That is, if we accept it.
I think too many people make up excuses for why they can't have this better life in a better world, expecting someone else to come along and do it for them.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Fascinating stuff. I would also like to know more about the Druids influence in early Christianity. I have heard that the word "Christ" was actually a carry over from them, although I can't document that right now.

They were pagan. They engaged in a multi-God largly Matriarchal form of worship. Christianity was strickly Patriarchal (not an idea of Jesus's). The pagan influence in Christianity ran a strait arrow at least to the time of Constantine, who is well known to have appeased those within his realm in Constantinople by leaving many pagan symbols within his new constructions. Skip forward--the Freemasons were14th century christian/pagans, (repatriated Templar Knights France or Norman regions to Northern Britian, Scottland). They also HID images of paganism (the green man is one) in their architecture, right under the noses of the Clergy/monied individuals petitioning for the construction. RosyCross the best of the best examples of this thumbing of noses. Christian/Pagan idiology with all intents was demolished by the Catholic Dioceses in the 15th century during the Spanish Inquisition; was it because of the threat of Matriarchy? To this day the French revere the Magdalene more than the Mother of Jesus, and quite possibly Jesus himself.