"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

reply to post by charles1952


Fair enough...

and this?

1 Samuel 2
6 The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again.

7 The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth.

8 He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them he hath set the world.

reply to post by Akragon

Dear Akragon,

I would give a nickel (I'm a little tight this month) to listen to a discussion between you and windword. You're one of the reasons I like ATS. Thank you for keeping me from getting too sloppy or complacent.

Let me add a little to 1 Samuel 2, just to make your case stronger (it's Verse 1):

“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.

We know we're not supposed to boast over our enemies, yet this is written. What's going on?

I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I can only offer an opinion. In a way it seems like dodging your question; I attempt it only because you've been so patient in the past. (And don't forget, I remember your secret nickname.)

The Old Testament is full of battles and slaughter and such, but for sheer, gleeful, anticipation of a blood-curdling revenge, I don't think you can do much better than David in some of the Psalms. Here are some verses from the first ten Psalms:

Arise, Lord!
Deliver me, my God!
Strike all my enemies on the jaw;
break the teeth of the wicked.

My enemies turn back;
they stumble and perish before you.
For you have upheld my right and my cause,
sitting enthroned as the righteous judge.
You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked;
you have blotted out their name for ever and ever.
Endless ruin has overtaken my enemies,
you have uprooted their cities;
even the memory of them has perished.

Strike them with terror, Lord;
let the nations know they are only mortal.

Break the arm of the wicked man;
call the evildoer to account for his wickedness
that would not otherwise be found out.

The Psalms can be seen as David's prayers, just as the 1 Samuel verses are Hannah's prayers. I'm not sure, but I think these are reflections of the people, their society, and how they saw God.

There were deprivations, attacks by enemies, foreign religions, slavery, all sorts of tragedy. I wonder, and remember I'm guessing, if the Hebrews didn't see God as Robocop. A powerful being dispensing justice by death and punishment of the Hebrew's enemies.

I believe they were expecting the Messiah to be a great worldly leader, a King over the earth to exalt the Hebrews and cast down their enemies. Jesus said they got that wrong, and perhaps their Old Testament prayers had God's plan wrong also.

Of course I could be completely off, but the joy in talking to you comes from new thinking and ideas. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

She had free will, she could have said no to Gabriel, she could have sinned, but she chose not to do either.

I contend, given that Mary was, according to you, pre-programmed by God to be the mother of Jesus, that she couldn't have had free will. She had no control over herself.

The last person, to my knowledge, to say no to Gabriel was Lilith, and look what happened to her!

[Don't all of God's children have daily contact with God?]
Yes, in a way, but only Mary changed His diapers. (Or listened to Him as He tried to learn Aramaic, or carpentry, or at play.)

This is another fundamental disagreement that we have. I don't believe that Jesus is/was God. That is not the kind of God I believe in or is it my definition of divinity.

But nobody does something because they expect bad to come from it.

That is not true. People plot to hurt other people, on purpose, all the time. Even "good" Christians pray for the destruction of the world. My "good" Christian mother used to pray for bad things to happen to the sinners and non-believers in our family and close circle, so that they would see the error of their ways. Sometimes (always) she thought God needed a little help and did some rather un-Christianly things to get her point across.

It's not unusual to hear a pastor call for a prayer for God show someone the error of their ways, hoping for ill to befall the sinner.

Even if the robber is correct, how in the world did he get the idea that God wanted him to get money by threatening people and stealing it?

I used extreme examples to easily illustrate my point. Switch the "bank robber" with a shoplifter stealing from Walmart to get Christmas presents for her kids, after attending church, full of faith that God wants her children to have stuff.

[Sin may be committed to impress God.]
Not by a reasonably sane person.

What about people who self crucify themselves, flog themselves or crawl on their knee in gravel to (impress) God with their humility?

One could argue that belief in the Christian God is unreasonable.

Again, he's nuts. Illusions, falsehoods, and death aren't divine, they don't come from God. The same is true for the addict, although, in his own way, he is also insane. And, as you point out, he has no control over himself.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Holy Spirit is the divine spark in all of us. When it leaves, one gets a glimpse of the divine. I've seen this with my own eyes. My fathers death was the most awesome thing to have witnessed. His divine spark exploded with unspeakable joy from his comatose body.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Exekiel and John of Patmos had ingested something that brought about visions!

reply to post by charles1952

I don't think righteous and sinless have the same meaning

Neither do I. Righteousness is earned and learned, through trial and error (sin).

the best that a Hebrew righteous man could expect was to be sent to Abraham's Bosom.

YUCK!

It wasn't until Christ died and was resurrected that the door to heaven was opened for mankind.

The Hebrews believed in "Paradise". Jesus told the thief on the cross that He would be with him in Paradise. Jesus also said " 'From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.'"

And,

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Sounds to me like Heaven and Paradise are the same place.

Remember, His whole ministry was to take away sins

Jesus didn't "take away" sins. He forgave them, and asks/demands that we do the same.

If He walked up to someone and said "You've sinned, just like all the rest of mankind. Turn to Me and you'll be saved." I can imagine the self-identified "righteous" man saying something like, "Me? You talkin' to me? I go to temple, I make the sacrifices, I don't cheat people, never killed no one. Why, even the temple priests think I'm an OK guy. So get off my back with that stuff. I got mine, Jack."

What did Jesus say to Nicodemus?

"3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm really flattered, thank you. I know you don't waste your time on complete idiots, the fact that you're still around is high praise. You've given me a lot to work on here, I might miss some important things. If I do, please write back.

I contend, given that Mary was, according to you, pre-programmed by God to be the mother of Jesus, that she couldn't have had free will. She had no control over herself.

Wow! "Pre-programmed?" No free will? Jesus should have written a screenplay "My Mother, the Robot." I don't recall the words I used, but Mary wasn't programmed to do certain things. She was saved from ever being scarred by Original Sin.

The idea with Mary was that she was given a perfect start, no sin. What she did with her life after that was up to her. God gave Adam and Eve free will, He's big on that. I can't come up with a good reason to believe that of everyone who ever lived, only one person had their life controlled from start to finish, and that one was Mary, Jesus' mother who suffered watching her child die on the Cross.

The last person, to my knowledge, to say no to Gabriel was Lilith, and look what happened to her!

This is very interesting. I haven't been able to find Lilith mentioned in the few translations of the Bible I've looked at, let alone talking to anybody. Where should I look for this?

I don't believe that Jesus is/was God. That is not the kind of God I believe in or is it my definition of divinity.

Yet,

Jesus didn't "take away" sins. He forgave them, and asks/demands that we do the same.

I think I'm missing your point.

Bob and Tom are fighting with each other, Jesus walks up and asks "Wazzup?" Bob explains that Tom stole his donkey. Jesus says to them, "Chill. Tom, I forgive you." Bob has to wonder where Jesus gets off forgiving Tom. Bob knows that he has been hurt by Tom's action, and Bob's not in a forgiving mood. He also knows that God's law was broken, but only God can forgive an offense against God.

If you believe that Jesus forgave sins, and that Jesus wasn't a crazed lunatic, you're stuck with calling Jesus God.

Sounds to me like Heaven and Paradise are the same place.

the best that a Hebrew righteous man could expect was to be sent to Abraham's Bosom.

YUCK!

Ok, I agree, "Abraham's bosom" is a pretty unsettling image to our minds. But back then, it referred to the place of honor at a feast. It was the seat physically closest to the host. If you'd rather, you might think of it as in "Abraham's lap," but I'm not sure that's a better picture.

But Heaven and Paradise are seen as different places.

In the Gospel of St Luke, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Christ says that poor Lazarus goes to the “bosom of Abraham”, while the rich and selfish Dives goes to the torments of Gehenna. The bosom of Abraham is Sheol, shown here, in contrast to Gehenna, as a place of relative comfort and peace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #633, offers some teaching on this.

In the early Church the bosom of Abraham, Sheol, was identified with “paradise” and as distinct from heaven either as (1) a place of purely natural bliss for those worthy neither of heaven nor hell (in other words, limbo), as for example in St Irenaeus’ Against Heresies; or (2) as a place of preparation for heaven (much like our developed concept of Purgatory), as in Origen’s De Principiis.

hughosb.wordpress.com...

Further, remember "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise?" Jesus didn't ascend to Heaven for forty three days. His first stop was Hell (or Sheol). It's not unreasonable to think the thief was with Him there.

Illusions, falsehoods, and death aren't divine, they don't come from God.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Holy Spirit is the divine spark in all of us. When it leaves, one gets a glimpse of the divine. I've seen this with my own eyes. My fathers death was the most awesome thing to have witnessed. His divine spark exploded with unspeakable joy from his comatose body.

But, dear windword, we don't disagree. A soul going to God is a good and holy thing, but death is not. If death, in itself, was a good thing then we would have the duty of killing everyone we could and war would be celebrated and praised.

Being stabbed in the chest in a way that leaves a gaping wound is a bad thing. But having it done by a surgeon who is repairing a damaged heart valve is a good thing. Good can come from bad. Your experience is a verification of Romans 8:

28 And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

Even death can be a step to the greatest good.

People plot to hurt other people, on purpose, all the time. Even "good" Christians pray for the destruction of the world. My "good" Christian mother used to pray for bad things to happen to the sinners and non-believers in our family and close circle, so that they would see the error of their ways. Sometimes (always) she thought God needed a little help and did some rather un-Christianly things to get her point across.

It's not unusual to hear a pastor call for a prayer for God show someone the error of their ways, hoping for ill to befall the sinner.

Oh, I'll agree with you that we sometimes try to hide our hate and anger behind some "pious" prayer. It is misused, not always, but more often than I'd like.

I know a woman who was married. Her husband left her for another guy after abusing her physically and emotionally. Her calls to God for revenge often involved requests that God do painful (yet sickly humorous) things to her former husband's male parts, and to the part of his anatomy designed to excrete bodily waste, which he had turned to other purposes.

But misused as it sometimes is, return to the image of the surgeon. The patient was probably told that he had to exercise, lower his cholesterol, quit smoking, and take certain drugs. For whatever reason, these suggestions were not heeded or were ineffective. The time eventually came when there were no other option. The prayer could well have been, "God, we've done everything we can think of to help him turn his life around so that he can save it. If it's time for you to step in and slap him upside the head, go to it."

The idea is that, no matter how painful heart surgery is, it provides hope for the patient to reform and reclaim his life after everything else has been tried. My problem with this kind of prayer is that some Christians turn to it too quickly. I can easily hear God saying "Hey, not yet, we've got other stuff to try first. Besides are you sure you're praying because you only want good for this guy, or are you talking out of hatred and anger? I don't do hatred and anger, so go back, think it over and try again later. Kthxby."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

Thanks for you kind comments.

I'm not sure if you're pleading ignorance to "Lilith" because of her biblical absence or if you really are unaware of her mythology.

[The last person, to my knowledge, to say no to Gabriel was Lilith, and look what happened to her!]
This is very interesting. I haven't been able to find Lilith mentioned in the few translations of the Bible I've looked at, let alone talking to anybody. Where should I look for this?

Lilith, Adam's first wife, dared to declare herself equal to Adam. Well, the patriarchs of the Bible could NOT have a women's role model that claimed equality with men! So, Lilith was nearly scrubbed from the Bible. What remnants we do have of her paints her as a demoness! Go figure!

We know where Lilith came from and why she is part of Abrahamic beliefs. So why did Lilith, arguably one of the most interesting characters of the Bible, vanish within relatively recent history from Bible translations and the practice of Christianity?
www.thethinkingatheist.com...

According to Jewish mythology, Lilith was Adam’s wife before Eve. Over the centuries she also became known as a succubus demon who copulated with men during their sleep and strangled newborn babies. In recent years the feminist movement has reclaimed her character by re-interpreting the patriarchal texts that portray her as a dangerous female demon in a more positive light.
judaism.about.com...

Isaiah 34:14 “Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest.”

Zohar 3:19 “Come and see: There is a female, a spirit of all spirits, and her name is Lilith...”


Zohar (19b) “She wanders about at night, vexing the sons of men and causing them to defile themselves...”


Ben Sira 23a-b “Adam and Lilith began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while am to be in the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other as we were both created from the earth.'”


The Talmud (Niddah 24b) Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If an abortion had the likeness of Lilith its mother is unclean by reason of the birth, for it is a child but it has wings.


The Talmud (Shabbath 151b) R. Hanina said: One may not sleep in a house alone [in a lonely house], and whoever sleeps in a house alone is seized by Lilith.


Dead Sea Scrolls, Songs of Sage (4Q510-511) And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendour so as to frighten and to terrify all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and desert dwellers… and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of light, by the guilt of the ages of those smitten by iniquity – not for eternal destruction, but for an era of humiliation for transgression.

The offspring of this Lilith fill the world. A transmuted version of this legend appears in the Alphabet of Ben Sira, a Midrash of the geonic period, which sets out to explain the already widespread custom of writing amulets against Lilith.

Here she is identified with the "first Eve," who was created from the earth at the same time as Adam, and who, unwilling to forgo her equality, disputed with him the manner of their intercourse. Pronouncing the Ineffable Name, she flew off into the air. On Adam's request, the Almighty sent after her the three angels Snwy, Snsnwy, and Smnglf; finding her in the Red Sea, the angels threatened that if she did not return, 100 of her sons would die every day. She refused, claiming that she was expressly created to harm newborn infants. However, she had to swear that whenever she saw the image of those angels in an amulet, she would lose her power over the infant. Here the legend concerning the wife of Adam who preceded the creation of Eve (Gen. 2) merges with the earlier legend of Lilith as a demon who kills infants and endangers women in childbirth.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

("the Almighty sent after her the three angels Snwy, Snsnwy, and Smnglf;", Okay, so I used a little "licence", assuming that Gabriel was these 3 angels' commander).

At any rate, women who dare to challenge their given subservient position and say no to the angels, are she-devils and screeching banshies!

Did Mary believe she had the right to say "No" to Gabriel? I wouldn't think so, given the Jewish folklore of Lilith.

[continued]

reply to post by charles1952

Wow! "Pre-programmed?" No free will? Jesus should have written a screenplay "My Mother, the Robot." I don't recall the words I used, but Mary wasn't programmed to do certain things. She was saved from ever being scarred by Original Sin.

Why was it necessary for Mary to be "saved" from being born into "original sin"? Why would it be necessary for Jesus to be born from a woman who was exempt from a universal law? Was Jesus unable to be born if Mary had been born under the curse of original sin? Would he have been unable to teach and be an example otherwise? Was Jesus unable to conquer his own predicament of being born with original sin?

I can't come up with a good reason to believe that of everyone who ever lived, only one person had their life controlled from start to finish, and that one was Mary, Jesus' mother who suffered watching her child die on the Cross.

I can't come up with a good reason why it would be necessary to shield her (or Jesus) from the curse that all other humans are born with. Why would I suspect Mary had free will if she was exempt from the human condition from birth? How can we see Jesus as fully human if he wasn't subject to the human condition?

Bob and Tom are fighting with each other, Jesus walks up and asks "Wazzup?" Bob explains that Tom stole his donkey. Jesus says to them, "Chill. Tom, I forgive you." Bob has to wonder where Jesus gets off forgiving Tom. Bob knows that he has been hurt by Tom's action, and Bob's not in a forgiving mood. He also knows that God's law was broken, but only God can forgive an offense against God.

First off, it seems to me that this illustrates a crime against Bob, not God. The crime against God is using one of his creatures as a beast of burdon, in my opinion. And no, Jesus doesn't have the right to judicate Tom's action by forgiving him. That's Bob's choice. Bob deserves justice. Simple forgiveness doesn't equal justice. In this case Jesus is unjust.

If you believe that Jesus forgave sins, and that Jesus wasn't a crazed lunatic, you're stuck with calling Jesus God.

Jesus' teachings on forgiveness tells us that we need to be the ones doing the forgiving. The job is ours. It's not only God that forgives sin. Jesus' teachings of forgiveness doesn't make him God in my eyes. Buddha also taught forgiveness. That never gave Buddha "God" status, so why Jesus?

But, dear windword, we don't disagree. A soul going to God is a good and holy thing, but death is not.

How can that be, if death is the beginning to an eternal life of bliss?

If death, in itself, was a good thing then we would have the duty of killing everyone we could and war would be celebrated and praised.

It was in the Old Testament.

Further, remember "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise?" Jesus didn't ascend to Heaven for forty three days. His first stop was Hell (or Sheol). It's not unreasonable to think the thief was with Him there.

This is quite a stretch of the imagination and has absolutely no Biblical confirmation from Jesus himself. But, if we take the story on face value, Jesus and the thief were in Paradise that day, not a day or 3 days later. The idea of Jesus descending in Sheol or Hades is a product of the wild imagination and musings of Paul, while he was inventing his theology.

Oh, I'll agree with you that we sometimes try to hide our hate and anger behind some "pious" prayer.

So then, can we agree that, at least some sin, is born from believing that it is seeking to do God's will or finding God's presence?

The idea is that, no matter how painful heart surgery is, it provides hope for the patient to reform and reclaim his life after everything else has been tried.

There are 2 themes in this example. One is of forgiveness. Forgiveness of sin, whether done by you and me, or by God directly doesn't remove the consequences of sin. A condemned criminal, forgiven or not, still has to serve time.

Two, and separate, is the concept of miraculous healing. Not everyone who prays for healing receives it. But, according to theology, everyone who asks for forgiveness, and forgives others, is forgiven by God.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

How I would love to just sit and talk with you. This two finger typing business is a pain in the, well, fingers. But anything for you.

The Lilith post is the easiest for me to answer. I had only the vaguest knowledge of Lilith, and I thought, from the comments I saw, that she was mentioned somewhere in the Bible. Thanks to your post, among other things, I've learned much more about her.

I'm sorry if I sound cowardly, but if we expand this to include folklore and mythology, I don't think we'll ever be heard from again, it seems that broad. So if you don't mind, I'd like to stick with the Bible, unless you feel she's a pivotal point and needs to be explored here.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Are you sure those three angels weren't Smurfs? I seem to recall their names. - C -

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

LOL! They may very well have been smurfs. My Lilith comment was meant to be taken tongue in cheek. Certainly, we would be lost in obscurity to debate Lilith in this thread!

Two finger typing, getting locked out of ATS, because it keeps going down, are frustrating, indeed. But, yeah, it's been worth it!

I find it therapeutic!

reply to post by windword

Dear windword.

Thank you for your questions. I really enjoy following along the paths you break for exploration. Forgive me if I balk every now and then.

There are several possible reasons why Mary was born free of original sin, here, once again, I have to remind you that I am not a theologian. But whenever we ask why God did something in a particular way, there's going to be some speculation. For me, and not necessarily for the Church (for I don't know their teaching on it), it fits. It "feels" right. Almost as though it bears the same style, or melody, of God. I know this is vague, but it's also personal. Let me give you a few thoughts.

Jesus was described as the "New Adam." Having Mary as the "New Eve," both created sinless, seems fitting.

Mary was the dwelling place of God for nine months. One would want God's "container" or "home" to be spotless, free of sin or taint.

By breaking the chain of original sin which was passed from generation to generation, Jesus could be born without it. If He had original sin, we would have the situation where God was a sinner, and a sinner against Himself.

How can we see Jesus as fully human if he wasn't subject to the human condition?

But he was subject to the human condition. He had temtpations, physical and emotional suffering, poverty, abuse, and death. Besides, one of the many puzzles is what He experienced in the decades before His ministry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid I can't follow you in thinking that death is a good thing. Even the world tells us that. We think it is a good thing to fight against the death penalty. We have police to prevent murders or punish those who commit them. People who walk into a doctor's office and say "Death is a good thing, when I leave here I'm going to kill myself," get confined for their own protection.

We are talking about the destruction and eventual decay of God's greatest creation. That is not a good thing.

You're right that death can be the gateway to a soul reuniting with God. Unfortunately, that's not the soul's only possible destination.

Nobody says labor pains are a good thing, even if it is the beginning of a life. But finally, logic alone leads to an insupportable conclusion by following that thinking. Adam's sin made it necessary for God to redeem the world through His Son. Having Jesus on earth was a great and glorious good thing. Must we say then that Adam's sin was good? We would then be forced to say that bad is good. I can't follow you there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Tom stole Bob's donkey, you're right that he committed a crime against Bob. But he also violated "Thou shalt not steal," a sin against God. Tom has to make things right with Bob, but he also has to make things right with God. Jesus is saying, basically, I've made it all right. Which Jesus could only say if He was nuts, a bad person, or God.

In this case Jesus is unjust.

All right, you've picked door number 2, Jesus is a bad man. But if nothing else, He is portrayed in the Bible as a good man. The only impression we can get from the Bible is that He was good and just in His work here. Even you have said something to the effect of "Ditch the Pauline letters, listen to Jesus." But why would you want to listen to a bad man, an unjust man?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus' teachings of forgiveness doesn't make him God in my eyes. Buddha also taught forgiveness. That never gave Buddha "God" status, so why Jesus?

The list of people talking about forgiveness is lengthy, and accepted as a good teaching. Jesus isn't seen as God because of His good teachings, dozens of philosophers and leaders have said much the same thing. He wasn't adding much that was really new.

What was new, and one of the reasons He is known as God is His simple message and acts. "I've come to tell you that you have to face up to your sins, give them up, turn to Me to find forgiveness and the path to God. To show you this is possible and true, I will defeat death and sin by My death, Resurrection, and return to Heaven. And if you need more, I will perform miracles, healing people, forgiving their sins, returning the dead to life, and feeding the hungry. All the things that the prophecies said I would do." (My paraphrase)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus died the same day He told the thief that that day he would be with Him in Paradise. Ok, I understand that you don't like Paul. But John? John wrote in the first chapter of his revelation:

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

No, not absolute proof of anything, but interesting.

On Paul, it may not be appropriate for this thread, but your reasons for disliking him seem to be a little thin. Unless of course, you just don't agree with Paul's letters and want them thrown out. Otherwise, remember that he wasn't telling a life of Christ, like the Gospels. There was no reason for him to mention the miracles or provide quotes for Jesus. It's as if I was writing a book on the debt ceiling debate and neglected to quote Calvin Coolidge.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dear Akragon,

I would give a nickel (I'm a little tight this month) to listen to a discussion between you and windword. You're one of the reasons I like ATS. Thank you for keeping me from getting too sloppy or complacent.

Let me add a little to 1 Samuel 2, just to make your case stronger (it's Verse 1):

“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.

We know we're not supposed to boast over our enemies, yet this is written. What's going on?

I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I can only offer an opinion. In a way it seems like dodging your question; I attempt it only because you've been so patient in the past. (And don't forget, I remember your secret nickname.)

The Old Testament is full of battles and slaughter and such, but for sheer, gleeful, anticipation of a blood-curdling revenge, I don't think you can do much better than David in some of the Psalms. Here are some verses from the first ten Psalms:

Arise, Lord!
Deliver me, my God!
Strike all my enemies on the jaw;
break the teeth of the wicked.

My enemies turn back;
they stumble and perish before you.
For you have upheld my right and my cause,
sitting enthroned as the righteous judge.
You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked;
you have blotted out their name for ever and ever.
Endless ruin has overtaken my enemies,
you have uprooted their cities;
even the memory of them has perished.

Strike them with terror, Lord;
let the nations know they are only mortal.

Break the arm of the wicked man;
call the evildoer to account for his wickedness
that would not otherwise be found out.

The Psalms can be seen as David's prayers, just as the 1 Samuel verses are Hannah's prayers. I'm not sure, but I think these are reflections of the people, their society, and how they saw God.

There were deprivations, attacks by enemies, foreign religions, slavery, all sorts of tragedy. I wonder, and remember I'm guessing, if the Hebrews didn't see God as Robocop. A powerful being dispensing justice by death and punishment of the Hebrew's enemies.

I believe they were expecting the Messiah to be a great worldly leader, a King over the earth to exalt the Hebrews and cast down their enemies. Jesus said they got that wrong, and perhaps their Old Testament prayers had God's plan wrong also.

Of course I could be completely off, but the joy in talking to you comes from new thinking and ideas. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952

To answer this question you need to keep in mind my stance on the OT god...

The people in the OT Didn't know God though they claim otherwise... They were men that followed other men who wanted to pillage and conquer land in the name of this "false god".

IF they didn't know the true nature of God... one can't very well expect them to act accordingly

reply to post by Akragon


I'm willing to bet that some characters in the OT such as David, Solomon, Moses, and Isaiah did know the true nature of God, only some came in later and added to their words and twisted their meanings and put them out of context and added them to their own fictional stories of a vengeful, jealous, wrathful god.

I think the OT "prophets" are in the same boat as Jesus. Their words twisted and attributed to a counterfeit god made up by those wanting power and control. Much like Jesus' words were hijacked by Paul and the Romans, OT characters were hijacked by the Israelites.

As long as you ignore all the conquests and killings attributed to "god", there is a lot of wisdom to be seen in some OT books such as Song of Solomon, Psalms, and Proverbs. Throwing the whole thing out is a bit unfair in my opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Interestingly enough im having the same discussion with This awesome girl im talking to right now... so you get the same question as she did


Show me one thing in the OT as far as spiritual knowledge is concerned that Jesus didn't cover...

reply to post by Akragon


It can't really hurt to get more than one perspective can it? Proverbs is a great book, as is Psalms. I'd recommend trying them out.

Solomon was a great teacher, maybe on par with Jesus, and I do not believe he worshiped Yahweh just as I do not believe Jesus worshiped or was Yahweh. I think it's possible that King Solomon didn't even write the books, they were only attributed to him in order to make Israel and it's king seem wiser than they actually were.

Whoever wrote them though did know the true nature of God. Jesus isn't the end-all be-all on spiritual knowledge.

I'd say read those two books with an open mind, there is wisdom to be found in them for sure.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well said, but that didn't answer the question now did it?

I've read Psalms and proverbs don't you worry about me... they are actually my fav books in the OT...

Well pslams is better in my humble opinion

Im saying, if one man were to base his faith on the OT... and another based his life on the gospels...

Who would come first in the "kingdom of heaven" according to him?

When it comes to the bible Jesus actually IS the end all be all of spiritual wisdom in my opinion...

But what do I know...

reply to post by Akragon


I'd say that Solomon (or whoever it really was) compliments Jesus and vice versa.

Song of Solomon would probably have to be my favorite book in the OT, it's allegorical for Mother Earth and her relationship with consciousness, or the "man of the house" in my opinion. It opened my eyes to a few things and it's a great learning tool for those with an open mind.

Oh, and speaking of Song of Solomon, that's one lesson that you will not find in the gospels, a teaching of Mother Earth and her beauty and importance within heaven. Not saying Jesus didn't teach that, I'm sure he did, but for whatever reason (greed) it was left out of the gospels.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

Sorry for my delayed response, I only just saw your post! I'm glad that you're willing to converse, and to try to follow my point of view. . I enjoy our conversations too.

I don't want to be contrary or offensive, but I'll never believe in original sin, and the need for Jesus to have died because of it. I'll never believe that innocent blood is a magical pass to heaven and needed for my forgiveness from God.

Jesus was described as the "New Adam." Having Mary as the "New Eve," both created sinless, seems fitting.

Really? By whom? Pre-sin Adam didn't know about sin. How is Adam represented in the Jesus story? Jesus didn't stop the sin that Adam initiated from continuing. He didn't defeat Satan, as he's alive and well, and still in charge.

Was Mary the reincarnation of Eve? How come Jesus never reproduced?

Mary was the dwelling place of God for nine months. One would want God's "container" or "home" to be spotless, free of sin or taint.

By breaking the chain of original sin which was passed from generation to generation, Jesus could be born without it. If He had original sin, we would have the situation where God was a sinner, and a sinner against Himself.

God needed a spotless container to grow Jesus' body, so he would be born free from sin, but he didn't mind Jesus living in a sin infested world, outside the womb?

But he was subject to the human condition. He had temtpations, physical and emotional suffering, poverty, abuse, and death. Besides, one of the many puzzles is what He experienced in the decades before His ministry.

How can "God" be tempted? Did Jesus not know he was God, or did he need to be tempted to learn about sin, a foreign concept to him? Was Jesus really tempted to commit a sin?

--------------------------------

You're right that death can be the gateway to a soul reuniting with God. Unfortunately, that's not the soul's only possible destination.

I don't believe that. We are all forgiven and we all return to God, eventually.

Adam's sin made it necessary for God to redeem the world through His Son.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how the death of a innocent man, 6000 years after the mistake of another, can redeem the world.

Having Jesus on earth was a great and glorious good thing. Must we say then that Adam's sin was good? We would then be forced to say that bad is good. I can't follow you there.

Would it be good if this reality never happened? If we had never been born? Without Adam's sin, we wouldn't be here at all, hypothetically. But, in my opinion, Adam never really existed, and is a mythical explanation of why life isn't perfect. Adam is a scapegoat for the cold hard facts and realities of life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Tom stole Bob's donkey, you're right that he committed a crime against Bob. But he also violated "Thou shalt not steal," a sin against God. Tom has to make things right with Bob, but he also has to make things right with God. Jesus is saying, basically, I've made it all right. Which Jesus could only say if He was nuts, a bad person, or God.

In this case Jesus is unjust.

All right, you've picked door number 2, Jesus is a bad man.

No. I'm not saying Jesus was a bad man, but he makes for a lousy civil judge, in your example. Jesus should make the man return the other man's property. Then, if he wants, as any judge can, suspend his sentence. But he doesn't have the right to unjustly dispense justice based on unconditional forgiveness. We are forgiven, but we still have to pay for our mistakes and crimes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was new, and one of the reasons He is known as God is His simple message and acts. "I've come to tell you that you have to face up to your sins, give them up, turn to Me to find forgiveness and the path to God. To show you this is possible and true, I will defeat death and sin by My death, Resurrection, and return to Heaven. And if you need more, I will perform miracles, healing people, forgiving their sins, returning the dead to life, and feeding the hungry. All the things that the prophecies said I would do." (My paraphrase)

In my opinion Jesus taught the spiritual lesson of a good life and the way to avoid the wheel of karma, in order to be born again, a free person.

I don't believe in the miracles or the resurrection.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus died the same day He told the thief that that day he would be with Him in Paradise. Ok, I understand that you don't like Paul. But John? John wrote in the first chapter of his revelation:

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

No, not absolute proof of anything, but interesting.

Nope, don't like Revelations, either, not as proof of Jesus' divinity. I think Revelations is an interesting account of a dream or a vision of an ongoing spiritual perception that is always true. It's not something that will happen, but is always happening, allegorically.

On Paul, it may not be appropriate for this thread, but your reasons for disliking him seem to be a little thin.

Paul's concept of Jesus was based on his take on the Greek "Christ" concept, that existed long before the advent of Jesus. He used Jesus and his followers as a platform to start his own, new religion, in my opinion. I"m not necessarily opposed to Paul's "Christ oversoul" roll for humanity and as a spiritual guide for our higher selves, but I don't like the religion he created around it.

Paul invented the concept of original sin. You won't find it in the Old Testament. You won't find it in Jewish theology, you won't find it in Jesus' teachings. You will only find it in Pauline doctrine.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh, and speaking of Song of Solomon, that's one lesson that you will not find in the gospels, a teaching of Mother Earth and her beauty and importance within heaven. Not saying Jesus didn't teach that, I'm sure he did, but for whatever reason (greed) it was left out of the gospels.

Well lets see...

The meek and humble will inherit the earth... yet one should not lay up treasures on earth, where the rust "doth corrupt"... He told people about "earthly things" and they did not believe, which is why he spoke in parables about "heavenly things"...

All whilest taking no thought about what one should eat or drink, or what one wares because the life is more then just meat and the body is more then the raiment... clearly, because God feeds even the fowls of the air who neither gather nor reap...

.....

Though perhaps you're right...

reply to post by Akragon


Well, I agree with him here. Don't hold on to Earthly things because they are only temporary, you cannot take Earthly possessions with you after you die. The spirit is eternal, so store up knowledge and wisdom to take with you in the next life. That is truly what counts, not money or possessions.

This doesn't speak of the importance of the relationship between the physical and spiritual though. They are interconnected and you can't have one without the other. If you have no body, your spirit has no way of expressing itself and vice versa.

Solomon's poem and Jesus' teachings aren't really talking about the same thing here in my opinion. Solomon speaks of the relationship between the world around us and the consciousness it possesses, Jesus is talking about don't hold onto anything in "this" world because we are only here for a short time before moving on to the next life.

While I believe Jesus DID teach about this relationship, I believe it was withheld from the gospels because it would point toward Earth and the universe being an intricate part of heaven. It would point toward the physical universe being the true Bride (physical) of Christ (consciousness). The church couldn't have that, so they left it out.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm ashamed to admit it, but it seems I've been making assumptions that are wildly faulty. I can't walk with you if we start in a different place, and as I do want to walk with you, I need more understanding.

I have never seen you as offensive, contrary, sure. The rhyme "Mary, Mary, quite contrary" was written for you, but there's nothing wrong with that. Who wants 100% agreement all the time?

In my opinion Jesus taught the spiritual lesson of a good life and the way to avoid the wheel of karma, in order to be born again, a free person.

I don't believe in the miracles or the resurrection.

Nope, don't like Revelations, either, not as proof of Jesus' divinity.

And I know how you feel about Paul.

Is there any book in the Bible you accept "as is?" I suspect the answer is "no." This, of course, leaves me confused.

First, what part of the Bible do you accept, if any? If it is only the spiritual teachings, then we have to accept Hell. Jesus is speaking in Matthew 25:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I can't see how Jesus was a good spiritual teacher, if He said things that were easily misunderstood, or false, or impossible.

The only way to deal with this that I can see, is to take the position that everything in the Bible is false. I don't think that you're saying "If the Bible says it and I agree with it, it's true, otherwise it's false."

Can you help clear up my confusion?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I'm ashamed to admit it, but it seems I've been making assumptions that are wildly faulty. I can't walk with you if we start in a different place, and as I do want to walk with you, I need more understanding.

Charles,

I"m not sure that posting my "life philosophy" is appropriate for this thread or fair to Scorpio, but in the interest "righteousness", I'll try, and try to stay on topic, too.



I am the beloved child of the great father. I walk his kingdom, as his child, and claim it as my promised inheritance. As I walk the path, through the valleys and over the hills, I follow a beautiful light, just ahead of me. The closer I get the more illusive this this light becomes. Like a rainbow, I can't catch it.

As I trek through my father's kingdom, following my path and my light, I am aware of giant gods, huge as mountains, benevolently smiling approvingly as I pass. I see a lovely dale, and decide to take a break from my journey, and veer off my path to explore the little dale. Why not? There's no hurry to get home.

I explore, take a refreshing swim in a fresh water pond, pick some fruit and have a little lunch, take a nap, and return to my path, where the beautiful light remains where I left it, waiting for me.

Further along, I spy a winding path that leads to a high mountain. The mountain laughs at me and assures me that I can't inherit what I can't conquer. I challenge myself to reach the top of that mountain, and veer off my path to meet the challenge..... Why not? There's no hurry to get home.

My first attempt to climb the mountain, leaves me at a rocky crag of a dead end. I can't reach the top from here. I retrace my steps and return to the bottom of the mountain and plot a different course to the top. Nightfalls, and I'm cold, but I don't let that bother me, because I'm resolved to reach the top of that mountain, even though it is not the way home.

It takes many, many, many tries to make it to the top of that mountain, and I'm bruised, hungry and tired, but my resolve to conquer the mountain doesn't abate. Whether or not I continue to "fight" the mountain or give up and return to my familiar path, matters not to my father. He loves me the same. Knowing this gives me the courage to meet the challenge. However, it may take what seems life times to conquer.

But, when I finally succeed, the view of my fathers kingdom is spectacular, and the light of my victory shines for all to see. I have righteously conquered the mountain!



-----------------------

Charles, to some, my decision to veer off my path may appear to be a sin. I should stay on my path and just go home. But, there's no hurry. I know my father's kingdom better for the folly, and have become stronger in my resolve to claim my inheritance in my dalliance.

I may meet other's along the path, and choose to linger and enjoy their company and walk with them along their paths for a while, before returning to my own way home. Who knows, our paths may intersect and we'll find that it's appropriate to walk together, sharing our burdens to make the trek lighter.

I believe that the soul is an eternal entity, and that this life is just one dalliance in the exploration of God's kingdom. I don't have to come back, life time after life time to climb that mountain, I choose to. After all, I have all eternity to go where the wind takes me. I can always retrace my steps, return to my path to follow the light that waits for me and leads me forward towards home.

I can't see how Jesus was a good spiritual teacher, if He said things that were easily misunderstood, or false, or impossible.

Jesus didn't come to walk God's kingdom for us. He wanted us to explore and conquer it's mountains for ourselves. He didn't give us a map of the kingdom, but endowed us with resolve to claim it as our inheritance.

The only way to deal with this that I can see, is to take the position that everything in the Bible is false.

I think that the Bible reflects the paths of others and can be seen as a cryptic treasure map, filled with puzzles and pitfalls. We each have to crack the treasure map code for ourselves.

I hope my little story reflects my "life philosophy" in such a way that we can find some common ground, a shared, if not temporary, respite from our journey. We'll meet for supper at our father's house, in any event.

There's no hurry. Eternity is now. But for now, humans can't handle eternal consciousness. We still need to sleep and to dream. And, tomorrow, I'm going to attack that mountain again!