Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


How do you explain John 5:46 in that case? If Moses wasn't a true man of god then Jesus wouldn't have said that in my opinion.


First of all, Moses is said to have written "The Torah." The Old Testament that we have today is nowhere near the Torah that Jesus would've quoted.

Secondly, the Essenes claimed that their ascetic religious order/sect was re-established by Moses, and the vow of the Nararite can be found in Numbers, Chapter 6, given to Moses by "God." The Essenes claimed this to be the origin of their order during the time of Jesus.

Third, It's my opinion that Jesus was an Essene. The Essenes had been waiting and preparing for the return of the "Righteous One" the messiah, and believed that he would "incarnate" through their sect. Their hope was cultivated and realized in Jesus, and they bestowed on him the authority to teach the "correct" translation of the Torah, which he does throughout the gospels.



That's how "I" explain John 5:46!



edit on 30-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Moses was alive at some point correct? That's like saying that since Jesus is dead now, his god is no longer valid.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


Moses was alive at some point correct? That's like saying that since Jesus is dead now, his god is no longer valid.


No no... What im saying is... There is a God of this world... and he/she/it is not the true Father of Creation...

Jesus refers to this god as the God of the dead...

In the NT you'll also find it said, the flesh is dead without the spirit...

Two different Gods...




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


So basically Jesus and Moses worshiped the same god? Is that right?

Thanks for the explanation!



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


But Jesus still said that Moses spoke of him. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just confused a bit. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


But Jesus still said that Moses spoke of him. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just confused a bit. Sorry.


no prob...


There was hints of the true God within the OT... but they were few and far apart... mostly just prophecy of Jesus

Its said in the OT, God does not change... Well... the OT God had it all wrong... the "rules" he gave to moses were a mess compared to what Jesus gave... in many cases Jesus said the complete opposite as what Moses did... so how is it possible this God does not change?

Clearly IF this OT God was the same... he changed his mind on numerous things when Jesus hit the scene.... the only logical explanation is that this wasn't the same God....

edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Dear windword,

LOL,



Do you think that "God" has sperm? Even babies born from the miracle of artificial insemination have father that ejaculated sperm into a cup. Did Jesus' father have a penis? Where did the sperm come from, in this immaculate conception?


1. Do I think that God has sperm? My answer is, if he wants too; but, why should he have to bother. If he could create people by intending them to exist, why would he need sperm?

2. Did Jesus' father have a penis? Sure, if he wanted too; but, again why would that be necessary when men don't need penises to have sperm. Sperm comes from testicles not penises. Heck, we can make people without using sperm at all, it is called cloning.

I will make it simple for you. Any question about physical creation that you have, ask yourself if we would be able to do these things in the future without a physical, person to person, sexual intercourse. Could we walk on water today, of course we can, we call it water skying. Could they do that 2000 years ago, no. They did not have boats that were fast enough. Do you really wish to argue that we cannot have an immaculate conception today? Heck, a woman just got arrested for artificially inseminating her teenage daughter and you still wish to argue the point?

Neither sperm nor a penis are required to have a child today. If you follow current science, this is apparent. Why does the fact that God could have done such a thing cause you difficulty? If God is all knowing then maybe he knew what we were capable of and could do the same himself. Do you believe an all knowing God knows less than we do today?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AQuestion
 



In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.


Jesus didn't say that... John did...




Dear Akragon,

I never mentioned who said it. Consider the concept that was being presented. What was meant by what he said, what John said? What was he really saying? People focus on the name of God and the name of Jesus and completely ignore the meaning of those names. God basically equals the concept or "I am me". The name Jesus Christ means basically, "I am God's forgiveness". Why is the name so important, because of the sound or because of the meaning.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I would be careful with my answer here. I think that the author of the Torah, who was called Moses, and Jesus were playing for the same team.

The Torah is a mystical truth that has less to do with the stories of Yahweh and friends and more to do with "picture and sound" it represents.

The Essenes needed the Torah reinterpreted by "The Righteous One" because, by the time of Jesus, it was impossible to discern it's truth through it's corruption. We still have the same problem today, with the Bible.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AQuestion
 



In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.


Jesus didn't say that... John did...




Dear Akragon,

I never mentioned who said it. Consider the concept that was being presented. What was meant by what he said, what John said? What was he really saying? People focus on the name of God and the name of Jesus and completely ignore the meaning of those names. God basically equals the concept or "I am me". The name Jesus Christ means basically, "I am God's forgiveness". Why is the name so important, because of the sound or because of the meaning.


Its not about the name... Its about making Jesus something that he was not...

I don't believe God should have a name... Dare we believe we can name the creator?

Isn't that a bit... I don't know... Prideful?

God is nameless because there was no one that came before him to give him that name...

edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


But the Law that Moses presented, Jesus supported. His two commandments covered all of the Law, which means that he conformed to Moses' Law, except he refined it. Him refining it does not mean he rejected it.

Me speculating that Moses didn't worship Yahweh is the same as you speculating that Jesus didn't worship Yahweh.

If all that came before Jesus were thieves and robbers then why did he accept the Law of Moses and say that Moses spoke of him? He never explicitly says that Moses was anything other than a man of god, in fact he agrees with Moses on many occasions.

The Torah was corrupted by the Hebrew priests, not Moses himself.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I agree 100%.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Dear Akragon,

We do not need to agree on anything, I enjoy discussing the points where we have differences of opinion.



Its not about the name... Its about making Jesus something that he was not... I don't believe God should have a name... Dare we believe we can name the creator? Isn't that a bit... I don't know... Prideful? God has no name because there was no one that came before him to give him that name...


BTW, I just finished a Reeces candy and am on a sugar high as I rarely eat sweets. LOL. We disagree as to whether or not Jesus was also God; but, the gateway to heaven is in having the heart and soul of the eternal and love and forgiveness for others. Does the name really that much? As for the name of God, he is willing to be called by many names and the bible lists many. It is not about the name, it is about the understanding of the heart of God and we all understand it imperfectly for we are not God. That is my answer, do I get a cookie for effort?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Perhaps... But as far as I remember there was two different issues of the Ten commandments...

One set Moses smashed... Exodus 34 describes the other set... and its quite different

Two sets.... two Gods?

And honestly if Moses was true man of God, would he have ordered his troops to kill women and children?

How does that fall in line with the two Jesus gave?

edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


AQ,

So what you saying, basically, is "If God wants to use sperm and male body parts he can, but why should he, when he can just use magic?" Further, you're pointing out that science can do these things, and asking "Why couldn't God?"

Here's my problem. If you believe that God impregnated Mary "magically" that's one thing. But you can't use science to prove God's magical abilities to manifest miracles.

I don't believe in a magical God. But if I must consider bible stories to be true, then I would argue that the Ancient Alien theory is more logical than the Biblical character of Yahweh being GOD. If these (mythical) deities were present et al, and our ancestors wrote about them, they were not gods and certainly not "GOD"!

edit on 30-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I don't give cookies...only stars and slaps


You can have a star


We don't have to agree... the fact is, once I get there... IF im told the trinity is the truth... what am I going to say?

Nope I don't believe it?



edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


As I said, I don't believe Moses ordered any killings, those were added in after his death.

You know when Moses supposedly killed the Egyptian? I don't believe that ever happened, I believe it was a creation of those who edited the Torah after Moses' death. The Egyptian that he supposedly killed was himself. Him killing the Egyptian was the editors killing off his true identity in my opinion.

Look up "Moses was Amenhotep IV", there are many parallels between Amenhotep (Akhenaten) and Moses. Exodus is historical fiction based on Amenhotep changing the Egyptian religion from that of Amun to Aten. Just like the NT, the OT is a mixture of both fact and fiction. The two sets of commandments could be a clue to that.
edit on 30-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


As I said, I don't believe Moses ordered any killings, those were added in after his death.

You know when Moses supposedly killed the Egyptian? I don't believe that ever happened, I believe it was a creation of those who edited the Torah after Moses' death. The Egyptian that he supposedly killed was himself. Him killing the Egyptian was the editors killing off his true identity in my opinion.

Look up "Moses was Amenhotep IV", there are many parallels between Amenhotep (Akhenaten) and Moses. Exodus is historical fiction based on Amenhotep changing the Egyptian religion from that of Amun to Aten. Just like the NT, the OT is a mixture of both fact and fiction.


I've been through this with another member...

Moses could not have been a pharaoh... or even be considered for the position...

So basically you're saying everything that involves Moses telling his followers to kill people was edited into the texts?

That's a whole lot of editing... I don't see the point honestly




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Why couldn't he have been a pharaoh? What's your reasoning behind that? Amenhotep was erased from history for thousands of years, why would someone have done that?

Why would they edit the NT? To tell a lie. The same goes for the OT. If those who edited the OT wanted people to fear god, why wouldn't they add in the killings? People wouldn't have been as afraid if god wasn't known to smite people.
edit on 30-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
 


Why couldn't he have been a pharaoh? What's your reasoning behind that?

Why would they edit the NT? To tell a lie. The same goes for the OT. If those who edited the OT wanted people to fear god, why wouldn't they add in the killings? People wouldn't have been as afraid if god wasn't known to smite people.


To be a pharaoh Moses would have had to have been pure Egyptian blood... from a bloodline of a pharaoh

He wasn't even half...

God was already known to smite people... he took out two entire cites... apparently

And it wasn't just moses ordering these killings in the story line... he made rules for killing people... such as witches, fortune tellers, gays, false prophets, working on the Sabbath, people approaching the tabernacle, pissy children, fornication, adultery, blasphemers... etc... etc... etc






top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join