The narrow path

page: 18
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50

This is page 17 already of this thread. I'm getting a bit lost. Maybe I need to go back to thirteen or so, to catch up.



However, many would say that alll those versions you and I are reading, unless we can interpret real Hebrew, aren't so applicable, anyway, which is why I mentioned I believe the text has been edited, expurgated, changed, etc. and a whole lot depends upon translation.

The Hebrew that was used to translate into the Septuagint is already gone, so you can't go back to it. The Hebrew we have now was reconstructed from the Septuagint, so it would be less accurate.


I happen to find the whole story of the Last Supper and what Jesus supposedly was to have said to his disciples in regards to comparisons of wine and meat, his continuing to be with them, and the Catholic ritual of taking sacrament, rather unGodly, and have always suspected it was just one more thing that could have been added......

This is cutting a bit close to the core of my own understanding of Jesus as present. I can much more easily give up the idea of physical resurrection as an addition. I don't endorse the Roman Catholic use of the sacrament. I recently read an article by the Jesuit spokesman for the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It was painful to read. It stated quite plainly that without the priesthood there could be no Eucharist. And obviously, in the Jesuit's view, there could be no Jesus.

But a Jesus who can only exist by the power of a priesthood isn't real anyway. Surely, in my view, Jesus is prior to the priesthood, and doesn't need a priesthood to be, and yet the priesthood thinks to control him. This is similar to the story of Solomon killing thousands of animals to get "god" into a stone temple.

To view Jesus as exalted, we may look at it this way: By giving the bread, he was assuming the priesthood himself, no other priesthood could be valid. He gave the bread to people, thus declaring the people to be more valid than the god of the Old Testament.

Most of us must eat to survive. Then unavoidably, the priesthood of Jesus remains.

on the other hand:

Paul wrote this in Romans 14:17 "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, " NIV and the author of John wrote: "John 6:62What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that vivifies; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life"

The safest course would seem to be, let the Son of man do as he will, and not attempt to restrain him, either on earth or ... where he was before.
edit on 19-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Did you miss this one?


Romans 14
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.


Didn't Jesus say god was of the living and NOT the dead? Why did Paul say this if he was writing through Jesus' spirit?

Am I taking this one out of context too? Because its pretty reasonable to say it stands on its own.
edit on 19-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Just as Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham are still alive, so is anyone else who has ever lived. It's called reincarnation, and no one is an exception to that rule.
edit on 19-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 
James 2
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Romans 3
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Clearly these two verses stand on their own and clearly they contradict one another.
No, it is not "clearly" that they stand on their own. You are pretending that Paul sometimes does not write rhetorically, and in those cases it is ok to look at a verse out of context.
Paul and James are saying the same thing, just in different ways. Paul adds a reference to the old written Mosaic Law, calling what you do to follow that as "works", and like James and his "things you do", he is emphasizing what you do by the "Law of Faith".

Paul says that you can be justified (saved) by faith alone, while James says that works are needed along with faith.
How do you get "saved" from "justified"? Being justified, as used by Paul, means to be made right, such as those "things you do" that James mentioned. You become "right" by doing righteous things.
All this "saved" stuff that Christians go around saying is not biblical but a usage in relation to theories concocted by people hundreds of years ago who had little understanding of the Bible. Paul did not use "saved" to mean that you have a ticket to heaven, but you are now a member of the church, just as being "saved" in the Old Testament meant being a member of Israel. You are no more guaranteed entrance to heaven by being saved according to the New Testament, than you were by being saved according to the Old Testament.

Romans 14
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

How can he be the lord of both the dead and the living when Jesus said he was only the god of the living and not the dead? Clear contradiction, and the verse stands on its own.
Going back to what Jesus said according to Luke, if you go to the end of his statement, you see him saying, " . . . to him all are alive."
What Jesus means is that as far as God is concerned, they are, whether they are literally alive right now or not.
Are you saying that no one is dead, and that Jesus is saying that everyone who has ever lived is still alive?

Should I go on?
Yes.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Apparently you missed the point. Paul says that Jesus is the god of both the living and the dead, Jesus says that god is only god of the living. Can you really not see it? Take your blinders off.

If to him all are alive, why did Paul say that he was the god of the dead? Stop ignoring it, it's so obvious what you're doing. You're twisting what he says to fit your premise. Paul says that people are justified apart from the law, meaning the law is not needed. James says that the law is needed along with faith. Stop twisting the words, you're only fooling yourself.
edit on 19-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Are you saying that no one is dead, and that Jesus is saying that everyone who has ever lived is still alive?


Yes, and apparently you are saying the same thing and so was Jesus. Paul doesn't agree with that and says that Jesus is god of the dead. How can he be god of the dead if he doesn't think anyone is dead?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon

Thanks for linking to the Antithesis. I don't think I'd ever read it before. I've got it book marked now. While reading it it seemed to be quoting me upon occasion.


"Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:10). Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator and indeed, the averter of his anger, "For Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them" (Exodus 32:32). "

The underline is where Marcion quotes me.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

This is cutting a bit close to the core of my own understanding of Jesus as present.
Looking at the verses related to the Last Supper, I think it may be that the most important part Is the wine.
He eats a meal with the disciples, one is the devil.
He picks up a unit of bread, breaks it, then doesn't say an awful lot about it. Then he goes into a speech about the wine, where the "bread" may only represent that the wine is related to meals in general.
Supposedly on Passover, you get rid of the yeast.
Wine is made with yeast.
He says he will not drink it again until he drinks it new (without fermentation), in the "kingdom".
Next time would be . . when? After Judas commits suicide.

If the Gospels are to be believed, then "the kingdom" started by the time that the resurrected Jesus was eating with his disciples.
edit on 19-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Apparently you missed the point. Paul says that Jesus is the god of both the living and the dead, Jesus says that god is only god of the living. Can you really not see it? Take your blinders off.
In the Gospel quote, Jesus says that God is the God of the living.
In Romans, Paul says that Jesus was to be the Lord of both the living and the dead. One is God, who you would think could automatically be the God of whatever He wants to, and Jesus, who has to actually do something so that he can be lord of not just those who are alive and believe in him, but those who have subsequently died.
So, to summarize:
God, meaning an entity not Jesus in particular, is God of everything and everyone.
Jesus, someone not God by himself, does things to be able to be Lord of at least some of the "everyone", believers in him, in particular.

If to him all are alive, why did Paul say that he was the god of the dead?
See my comment above.

Stop ignoring it, it's so obvious what you're doing. You're twisting what he says to fit your premise.
What premise? All I see is you not understanding things, but thinking that you do, based on garbage that your cult pretending to be a church taught you.

Paul says that people are justified apart from the law, meaning the law is not needed. James says that the law is needed along with faith. Stop twisting the words, you're only fooling yourself.
No, James said "doing things".
See my comment above, you were taught wrong by your cult masquerading as a church. They want to on purpose confuse you so that you think that the Old Testament Law is still in effect, but for the Jews, while Christians are bought by Jesus' blood and so takes them to heaven to be with him, while the Jews go back to their temple in Jerusalem, cutting the throats of sheep and goats and heifers or whatever.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Yes, and apparently you are saying the same thing and so was Jesus. Paul doesn't agree with that and says that Jesus is god of the dead. How can he be god of the dead if he doesn't think anyone is dead?
All I can say is that you are weird, thinking that there is no such thing as dead people.
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

Why does it say that if everyone is alive. Revelation says there are dead people in the sea and in hell.
What you are saying is that the entire Bible is wrong because of a parabolic statement in the Gospels, that you can't understand because the part of your brain that is supposed to recognize metaphors does not work.
edit on 19-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


m not sure I agree with that... I seem to think Paul was looking for a following... and he used the name of Jesus to gain exactly that... IF he had known Jesus, even if it was in a vision... one must assume he would have taught something from his lessons...

You have a thread A Dark Time In History, if I ever catch up in this thread, then I'll check it out.

The origins of Christianity are in the dark time. If you look it up in wikipedia, it gives the official Jewish scholar version of history, covering just before the public ministry of Jesus.

Compare:

Claudius' expulsion of some Jews from Rome

There were at least two expulsions of Jews from Rome before the event that Suetonius mentions. In 139 BC the Jews were expelled after being accused of aggressive missionary efforts. Then in AD 19 Tiberius once again expelled Jews from the city for similar reasons.[4] By the beginning of the reign of Claudius (i.e. AD 41) Jews had come to Rome once again and were in such numbers that the emperor was worried. However, according to Cassius Dio (see below), instead of them being expelled, this time the Jews were forbidden from holding meetings, so synagogues were closed.[5] Silvia Cappelletti describes Claudius's motivation as the need to control the population of Rome and prevent political meetings. (He "did not have an anti-Jewish policy.")[6] The expulsion event Suetonius refers to is understood to be later than 41.[7] Donna Hurley explains that Suetonius includes the expulsion "among problems with foreign populations, not among religions"[8]

I have read in a source that I will now have to find, that the AD 19 Tiberius expulsion was due to fighting amongst Messianic (wanting to overthrow Rome) and non-Messianic (content) Jews.

Jewish Messianic teaching did not originate with Jesus. Neither did the Christian version of Jesus being the Messiah originate with Paul. Way to much credit is given to Paul as somehow being the originator or the main spreader of Christianity.

I'm fairly certain that whatever the radical Messianic crowd was teaching, Paul's message was a counter measure to restrain the violence, which would have led to more severe actions from the Romans than what ended up happening. He couldn't have been acting alone, yet all we have are some letters from him.

What we don't have: recording of his speeches, talks, debates. We do not have any lesson syllabi of any prolonged teaching seminars. There is much we don't know.

edit on 19-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

There is much we don't know.
Robert Jewett's Romans commentary talks a lot about "tenement" churches, meaning not free-standing churches, but in homes within larger multi-family buildings, in Rome, as the start of recognizable Christianity.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




Your apology makes absolutely no sense. Reread it, because I couldn't make heads or tails of it. You don't think Jesus was god now? Why not acknowledge the clear contradiction? It's there, you can beat around the bush all you like, but it is a contradiction nonetheless. You don't acknowledge it because it proves you are wrong.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I guess god is weird too huh? Because Jesus said "to him all are alive", meaning no one is dead in god's eyes, which makes sense because his eyes are our eyes and the only eyes that can see are those that are alive.

You refuse to see it, but the contradiction is as plain as day. You are suffering from the "strong delusion" that Paul has given you. Wake up.
edit on 19-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Oh, and thanks for pointing out that verse in Revelation because that shows another contradiction.
edit on 19-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I see you're resorting to personal attacks now by calling what I think "garbage" and saying part of my brain is turned off and that I'm somehow part of a "cult" even though I don't believe in christian dogma anymore.

If you have to start stooping to that level you have already lost. Your brain is turned off to the truth, and that is that Paul contradicts Jesus on more than one occasion. I have more too, but I'll let that one marinate for a while.

Your going into defense mode because you KNOW that I'm right, so you start attacking me personally and making off-the-wall explanations out of thin air that make no sense. You made that whole thing about Jesus being a not-god personally hubba jubba up, just admit it. When you start making your own theories up on the fly, you don't know what you're talking about and are turning your brain off.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

You don't think Jesus was god now?
So you think every time Jesus talked about God, he was talking about and to himself?
You have an oddball dogma that I have to guess comes from your cult brainwashing that you probably will go to your grave believing.
They lied to you about Jesus and God being the same person to support their anti-christian propaganda that was designed by Zionists to destroy Christianity and lend support for their Jewish utopia in the Country of Palestine.

Why not acknowledge the clear contradiction?
Because there is none. All there is going on is Jesus talking one way to Sadducees, and Paul talking another way to Christians, and you not understanding the nuance involved in the different types of rhetoric.
edit on 20-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

I guess god is weird too huh? Because Jesus said "to him all are alive", meaning no one is dead in god's eyes, which makes sense because his eyes are our eyes and the only eyes that can see are those that are alive.
You are weird by thinking that you are God.
Jesus was talking to a group of religious people who believed that there was no such thing as a resurrection.
Today, we have tons of people who very much believe in it. So an argument for the resurrection seems very out of place to us today, and you are getting thrown off by it because you can't figure out how to place it in your world.

You are suffering from the "strong delusion" that Paul has given you. Wake up.
You should "wake up" to the reality that Paul did not write that. That is something written by a forger placing Paul's name on something he wrote himself.
edit on 20-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Who was Jesus' father again? God right? Who did Jesus say he was "one" with? His father right? So he implied that he was one with God right? Or do you deny his words?

If Jesus said he was the son of god, and that he and his father (god) were one, then him saying god (his father) was the god of the living, then he was saying that he believed that as well. Why would he say something he didn't believe? Is that the ONE time that he didn't tell the truth?

You are so delusional on this it is ridiculous. You believe Paul over Jesus it seems.

Who is the god of the dead in this situation? If you say Jesus, then you don't believe that he was one with god and that his his father wasn't god and that he wasn't the son of god. So basically, you're saying that Jesus was a liar. Good job.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

I see you're resorting to personal attacks now by calling what I think "garbage" and saying part of my brain is turned off and that I'm somehow part of a "cult" even though I don't believe in christian dogma anymore.
It's not an attack and it isn't meant to be a way to "win" an argument.
I am stating what you don't understand yourself, which is that everything that you think you know about Christianity is a lie.
That is because you belonged to a cult and never realized it and still don't realize it.
That is how cults work, they make you think what they teach is "normal" and everyone else are the evil, deluded-by-Satan people.

. . . you KNOW that I'm right . . .
For you to be right, everyone else would have to be wrong, and also that the New Testament was put together by people who had no idea what they were doing.
edit on 20-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Okay, just throw out anything you disagree with and you're gold! It is 100% universally accepted that Paul wrote Thessalonians, where the strong delusion is mentioned. Do you throw out all scholarly opinions when they don't agree with you? You are deluded into believing Paul over Jesus, that's what cults do to you, they delude you.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Who was Jesus' father again? God right? Who did Jesus say he was "one" with? His father right? So he implied that he was one with God right? Or do you deny his words?
This is what I was talking about when I said part of your brain is not working.
Sorry, but you have a defect where you cannot recognize a metaphor when you see one. You are doomed to have social problems because you do not know how to react to what people tell you because you have the mentality of a four year old (in that one skill).
I'm not trying to be mean, but I am just saying this is why you have problems with understanding religion.
You are not the only one here on this forum with this problem, where they find it impossible to understand verses in the Bible any way but strictly literally.
edit on 20-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join