Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: orangetom1999

We accept the Torah, but we believe the real "gospel" of Jesus was lost, but we do have traditions / narrations that have teachings of Jesus in them. We believe He had a book, an actual book that He wrote that is lost to us. The gospels you have now, we accept as if they are traditions / narrations, which means, we believe they were possibly corrupted over time, and that the sciences of traditions / narrations should be applied to its reading, but since there is no chain of narrators, (John told so and so, who told so and so etc) it is something rather impossible to do. But we do see it as if it is traditions / narrations, meaning, not absolutely true or without error.

Nothing we believe of His teachings and life is different I don't think. (the beatitudes, the miracles etc) We DO believe He is the Messiah and will come again.

A big difference that I know of between sunni and shia is that shia believe ALL the prophets were without sin (including Adam). We believe that the Jews diminished the prophets, made them less than what they really were (in their books) in order to raise themselves up. (I'm thinking that is a good explanation but if that confuses you then you can always ask me to explain further)

As far as where I am at personally? Well, that diverges somewhat from typical shia thought.

I now think, after meeting people like Nenothtu and jmdewey60, that there is possibly more truth to the gospels, it is simply not very well understood. For example: phrases like "Son of God" was used first for David - and "Sons of God" used in reference to the Israelite's, so I believe that this must have been a saying that was used for people who follow God (and very well at that) which was more easily understood / common to the Jews. I believe Jesus himself clarified this point when he told the pharisees that they were "Son's of their father the devil" because they followed his ways rather than God's ways. I believe this was a phrase apparently little understood by the converts to Christianity however, and people seemed lost as to meanings of certain things which was said - and understood by the earliest Christians at the time.

Otherwise, the council of Nicea could / would never have happened. There was an obvious difference of opinion back then on how to interpret many sayings - and it was actually a man who made the case (and swayed the vote of the people there), because of a miracle. If you recall, the man who had been put into the lions den, and called on the name of Jesus and lived through the ordeal. He showed the scars on his back that day, and it swayed the vote, and thus it became determined, that Jesus must be God. It wasn't the text which made them vote, it was on account of a miracle in the end.

I also believe the dead sea scrolls helps us further to understand that many phrases were used back then, which were seen differently to how they are interpreted by mainstream Christians today.

But, that is simply my own opinion - and nothing to do with teachings within my religion.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: maes2

Who is "son of man" in gospels !?

That is a very controversial subject that hasn't been satisfactorily resolved.
I was stating in an earlier on this thread my idea that it could be the person who Christianity has made into the third person of the Trinity godhead.
A lot of people just think that Jesus had the odd habit of referring to himself in the third person.
Some people think that it was a quirk of the language of that time, where Jesus lived.
Some people think that it was the mysterious figure from the Book of Daniel.
Some people think that it was a character from the Book of Enoch.
The general practice is to equate that person with Jesus.
My idea is that Jesus on purpose distanced himself from that other person.

Thanks a lot. Why do Christians believe that Jesus will return. Jesus says Son of Man will come something like apocalypse. Is there any evidence other than Son of Man that Jesus will return.

a reply to: orangetom1999

Absolutely - "propaganda", in either a religious or political sense, is nearly entirely driven by emotion... the unthinking sort of emotion that carries one off to illogical places.

The key, I think, is to be able to "feel" without abandoning thought, without giving up what is commonly known as "common sense". Both are necessary. To think without feeling is to be an automaton, a robot. To feel without thinking is to be a leaf, blown on the wind, wherever the wind list.

Both are necessary, because neither one alone produces a complete person, they each alone produce something less. Just as heating and quenching tempers the steel, balance between emotion and thought tempers the person.

Balance. Balance is what is needed.

"All things in moderation".

a reply to: maes2

Jesus says Son of Man will come something like apocalypse.

The Apocalypse is a revealing, and it could mean understanding something, instead of the more literal method of "seeing" in the way of normal eyesight.
That even applies to a saying that looks very literal, such as, "every eye shall see him."
Jesus was being prophetic in the gospels by predicting a cataclysmic event, connected with this person, the son of man.
As a fulfillment, you see the demise of the temple, along with a general destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.
I think this is why in a later gospel, the Gospel of John, you have Jesus making this mysterious explanation of the son of man to Nicodemus, to point out that the person "up in the clouds" at that carnage, was not Jesus himself, officiating over it.
Jesus was the one being vindicated by it but not actually doing it, by the demonstration that Jesus was now in power, mainly by the absence of the people formerly in power.

". . . he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds . . ."
Mat. 24:31

If this is not Jesus, then how could he be calling "his" elect?
That would make sense if it was the third person mentioned in the three names given to baptize people into, the Holy Ghost in Matt. 28:19.

And the person mentioned in Matt. 3:11-12

". . .after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

originally posted by: colbe

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: colbe
A request.

Please keep my posts together and reply underneath. Or if you have to, quote part of my post and reply, one on one is bearable in reply. It is awful when some people take your post apart sentence by sentence and even half sentences to talk more. The people reading it lose the meaning of the original post. This is the plan of those who do this. And ridiculous, they've divided your original post by ten comments! Are you suppose to then take the time to reply to each one of their comments then? Who has the time and it is endless.

yes...

you are supposed to respond accordingly to the comments in whatever way you feel is correct...

I am making a personal request. Be prideful if you wish and ignore it. Our silly fallen nature.

That's why I seldom respond to you - it's nearly impossible to carry on a conversation when you have 10 or 12 different thoughts to respond to, yet are constrained to respond to them all at once. The response comes out as a similar mishmash to the original that you are responding to, and I prefer to keep my thoughts and responses on target. It's too difficult to keep track of a conversation when the thought one is responding to is buried within a gazillion other thoughts.

So, If I can't separate it out to respond to it directly, so that I, you, and the reader can figure out what is being responded to, I simply don't bother.

originally posted by: colbe

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: colbe

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: colbe
A request.

Please keep my posts together and reply underneath. Or if you have to, quote part of my post and reply, one on one is bearable in reply. It is awful when some people take your post apart sentence by sentence and even half sentences to talk more. The people reading it lose the meaning of the original post. This is the plan of those who do this. And ridiculous, they've divided your original post by ten comments! Are you suppose to then take the time to reply to each one of their comments then? Who has the time and it is endless.

yes...

you are supposed to respond accordingly to the comments in whatever way you feel is correct...

I am making a personal request. Be prideful if you wish and ignore it. Our silly fallen nature.

haha... You're funny colbe

Thanks! My family tells me I lost my sense of humor when I found the Faith. I worry because we are in the
end times is all Akragon. If only I could help Jim, I love him too.

It is hard for people to change, the grace of God, brings conversion. Why the Blessed Mother has begged for centuries...pray, pray, pray.

"Blessed Mother"? There is a Catholic woman who has lived for CENTURIES? Where can I go see her, shake her hand, and ask her what it is she's been eating?

Or is this a continuation of THE "Blessed Mother" who cave men made figurines of, and who has come down through the centuries in various guises, such as Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, etc, etc?

originally posted by: colbe

Luther BEGAN the Protestant revolt from the Faith. Now that you know the fact those 7 books belong in the Canon, you must question the holiness of the others who went along with Martin Luther to deny the Faith on up until today.


colbe

Which 7 books are in the Catholic New Testament that are not in the Protestant new testament? I ask this because you have been hammering on the New Testament cannon, so it cannot be the Apocrypha.

It's a purely academic question, since I never quote the Catholic New Testament canon (I don't accept it because there have been inclusions solely to support Roman authority over divine authority, which I cannot accept), but a serious question all the same - I'd really like to know.

a reply to: nenothtu

Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, two books of Maccabees, and Baruch

Removed at the reformation I believe

a reply to: Akragon

Removed at the reformation I believe

They were added by the Catholic Church, after the Reformation because the Protestants claimed they were practicing things not in the Bible.
So to counter that, they added more books that seemed to support Catholic practices.
They did exist in the Septuagint but were not considered canonical until after the Council of Trent.

a reply to: jmdewey60

thank you for the correction

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: nenothtu

Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, two books of Maccabees, and Baruch

Removed at the reformation I believe

Ah yes, but none of those are NEW Testament, not even in Catholic bibles. They are either in the Old Testament canon, or are interspersed with other OT books - "Bel and the Dragon" comes to mind.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

My time is somewhat compressed with things to do the last couple of days and continuing but I wanted to read your reply if one had been posted.

My thanks again to you for your answer.

I have read many things and heard lectures from different speakers but wanted to get an understanding from someone in the faith. Again my thanks to you for this clarification of what I was seeking.



nenothtu,

Precisely correct. I am very wary of people who have mostly emotions to drive them...as a steering wheel for their lives...instant gratification types.

I am not into what I call..."Drama" or "Drama Queens." I cannot stand to sit and watch this afternoon talk show format based on emotions and drama. Pardon the crudity but I call it emotional masturbation..just like much of politics and leadership today. Predators on peoples unguarded emotions.

Well you get my point.

Years of working graveyard shifts and doing hazardous and demanding work tends one towards disciplines..if one is a thinker. And one who knows this tends towards wanting disciplined people around them..not drama queens.

Do not misunderstand me here. I am not against emotions. I am against undisciplined emotions. Unthinking undisciplined emotions. I am also against predators who prey on peoples unguarded and undisciplined emotions. And to me such an predator is a definition of much of what tries to pass for leadership today.

I believe this kind of predatory conduct has been refined into a discipline..a lifestyle by social thinkers..ie...political engineers..political parties...for easy, controllable, guaranteed, malleable, vote grabbing. You just set the emotional "Victim Belief Hook" and reel in the votes. '


I have detected that this kind or propaganda is part of a cycle..a devout religious belief or an order in operation. Even an "Entitlement " today. I speak here of people control..without most knowing it is even being done to them. That this is part of a devout and zealous religious system in operation.


Glad to hear that you see the pattern yourself...for what it is. Also I agree with your description of Balance.

For I can tell you what this kind of thing is not...it is not leadership...the kind of leadership which can bring the best out in people or make them want to do their best and better.

Must make haste..lots to do here before shoving off.

Thanks to all for their posts.

Orangetom

Originally Posted by Orangtom1999: Precisely correct. I am very wary of people who have mostly emotions to drive them...as a steering wheel for their lives...instant gratification types.

I am not into what I call..."Drama" or "Drama Queens." I cannot stand to sit and watch this afternoon talk show format based on emotions and drama. Pardon the crudity but I call it emotional masturbation..just like much of politics and leadership today. Predators on peoples unguarded emotions.

Do not misunderstand me here. I am not against emotions. I am against undisciplined emotions. Unthinking undisciplined emotions. I am also against predators who prey on peoples unguarded and undisciplined emotions. And to me such an predator is a definition of much of what tries to pass for leadership today.

I believe this kind of predatory conduct has been refined into a discipline..a lifestyle by social thinkers..ie...political engineers..political parties...for easy, controllable, guaranteed, malleable, vote grabbing. You just set the emotional "Victim Belief Hook" and reel in the votes. '

You should not concern yourself with other people’s emotions. You see it’s up to them to choose whichever way they want to use their emotions. You see its part of that person’s evolution to grow and get understanding. You can’t change the world from its present state of corruptness. It’s the same with peace. Never can peace be achieved in this world, nations go to war with one another, tribes go to war, family’s feud with one another, this has being going on since the beginning of time. If peace could be achieved in this world it would cease to exist. After all this earth is classified as a ‘prison planet’ is it not?

Originally Posted by Orangtom1999: I speak here of people control..without most knowing it is even being done to them. That this is part of a devout and zealous religious system in operation.

I sense you are not at peace with yourself, am I right? Again you should not worry yourself with people control; this is beyond your control. The control of the people through religion….yes. But Jesus never came to teach a Religion. These Religions only sprung up after the passing of these Mystics. Jesus’ only doctrine and teachings was on the ‘Word of God’ there is nothing higher. Peace resides within you, this we can all create for ourselves.

PEACE TO YOU:

a reply to: chiram

You should not concern yourself with other people’s emotions. You see it’s up to them to choose whichever way they want to use their emotions. You see its part of that person’s evolution to grow and get understanding. You can’t change the world from its present state of corruptness. It’s the same with peace. Never can peace be achieved in this world, nations go to war with one another, tribes go to war, family’s feud with one another, this has being going on since the beginning of time. If peace could be achieved in this world it would cease to exist. After all this earth is classified as a ‘prison planet’ is it not?

Please tell me you did not go to public schools and get a dose of public education....ie..a television and movie education.

It is indeed up to them to choose whichever way they want to use their emotions. But they do not have the automatic default setting to play through at my expense or the expense of others..when it goes south on them.

For you see..I often have to work with these people..in dangerous and very hazardous conditions. And I require them to have an attention span longer than a sound bite on a television program or commercial. On the job I have no interest in stopping for their entitlement beliefs and self indulgence...emotions. If they become such an burden on the job..I get rid of them.

For you see..in my occupation I work with specially trained teams of people to assemble nuclear fuel rods and then install them in reactors. Do you want one of these emotional drama queens working with you on a job like this?? How about off the job???
Not me.

Would you like to become radiated or contaminated/crapped out because such an self indulgent, instant gratification, emotional drama queen type cannot put down their cell phone and pay attention to the critical job steps taking place right in front of them and must be on their emotional self indulgent instant gratification drug habit instead of paying attention to what is happening around them...text messaging???? Would You???
Think about it.

How about a nurse attending to you who cannot put down their phone long enough to properly get the job done???

Not all of us live and work in arenas where we are made safe and secure by the "RISK Taking" and labors of others such that we can afford to live television and movie lives. Emotional Instant Gratification. We live in the real world. I do not change the way I think or observe around me because I come home from work to a more safe and secure location.

We do not get "Safety Nets " provided for us by "Entitlement Beliefs" and or working the system/emotions...or the "Victim Dictum" so popular today. We do not default through on our emotions. If anything we learn to discipline our emotions in order to reach certain goals. And His Word Is a Discipline...Disciple..under Discipline.

In times past..I have often helped people like this who lived for their emotions and when it went belly up...because they found out the world out here was not like television and movies...they needed a safety net. I do not do this now days.
If they want to live a television and movie emotional life...bon appetite. Be responsible for it...not be optional for it.
Just don't come to me for a "Safety Net." I am not disposable and expendable for them.

As to peace...

For those of us who know...Peace is the name of a person...among many of His names. Peace in and of this world does not mean an absence of strife. A big difference.

So many of us....by the traditions of men...have come to believe and take for granted that Peace is an absence of strife.

Not so.

Peace is one of the names for Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins. Another Biblical name for Him is Rest...Sabbath...for He is the Sabbath..we Rest in Him..not in man made traditions of peace.

Whenever I see or hear a leader talk or make speeches about world peace..I note it quickly for the counterfeit that it is.


And most out here know it not. So deep is this tradition of men concerning peace ingrained into people's thinking.

I sense you are not at peace with yourself, am I right? Again you should not worry yourself with people control; this is beyond your control. The control of the people through religion….yes. But Jesus never came to teach a Religion. These Religions only sprung up after the passing of these Mystics. Jesus’ only doctrine and teachings was on the ‘Word of God’ there is nothing higher. Peace resides within you, this we can all create for ourselves.

PEACE TO YOU:

Not when I keep being confronted with these people who don't have a clue outside of what they know and believe themselves entitled by emotions and they lack certain disciplines and I must get certain goals reached or accomplished with them. What they do on their own time I don't care. None of my business.

I prefer to keep this kind of individual at arms length away from me...come out from amongst them and be ye separate.

But at the same time I am observant enough to see a system in place to take predator like advantage of people like this for their votes. A devout and zealous religious system. And this other religious system is anti God..in everything it does or attempts to do. That is obvious to those who can see , hear, and understand. And this is waxing worse and worse. And for political lucre...for another religion..and another god.

And Yes..I agree...many of these Mystics are now in positions of leadership or "Handling " the people in leadership positions. And we see them producing their fruit once one knows for what to look.


Emotional drama queens are difficult to break out of their "Beliefs." Their religion. It often takes a very harsh dose of reality ..to jump start them out of this other religion. Some of them never get it..they are so deeply hooked on the drug.
And I mean male and female both here.

And prisoner/prison to a Believer means something else...not Prison Planet.


Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

ORANGETOM, what I picked up on is you’re angry because people fail to control their emotions, but isn’t that just what you are doing. You seem to be the one not able to control your anger E-motion. I believe its showing in your writing. I have studied the emotions and believe me anger is the worst one, it causes a slow poisoning of the system. I wouldn’t want to be working with you Orangetom if it’s true that you assemble nuclear fuel rods.

Take a break, give your mind a rest and reap the benefits.

And thank you for your post.
Chiram.

a reply to: orangetom1999

Peace is one of the names for Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins. Another Biblical name for Him is Rest...Sabbath...for He is the Sabbath..we Rest in Him..not in man made traditions of peace.

Do you think Jesus was YHWH of the Old Testament?
There is a Jehovah Sabaoth in the OT.
But it means "the Lord of hosts", having to do with armies, not the Sabbath.

Also, if you read a Jewish translation of the "Prince of Peace" verse in Isaiah, it is calling God that, not the child that was to be born.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: orangetom1999

Peace is one of the names for Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins. Another Biblical name for Him is Rest...Sabbath...for He is the Sabbath..we Rest in Him..not in man made traditions of peace.

Do you think Jesus was YHWH of the Old Testament?
There is a Jehovah Sabaoth in the OT.
But it means "the Lord of hosts", having to do with armies, not the Sabbath.

Also, if you read a Jewish translation of the "Prince of Peace" verse in Isaiah, it is calling God that, not the child that was to be born.

This is not the case.

From the Soncino Hebrew-English:

Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom"

The commentary mentions that non-Jewish scholars suggest that a contemporary person is implied, and Jewish commentators apply this to the son of Ahaz.

It may have some meaning for the contemporary kings, but a greater fulfillment as many things in the scriptures.

The commentary finishes:

pele-joez The meaning of the Hebrew words is "wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace." The child will bear these significant names in order to recall to the people the message which they embodied.

What I see is significant in this verse is (the child) is "God the mighty", not "God almighty"

a reply to: TheChrome

From the Soncino Hebrew-English:

Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom"

This is the version I was talking about:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
(The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary)

What you are quoting isn't exactly an English translation, so is ambiguous and therefore doesn't prove anything in this argument.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: TheChrome

From the Soncino Hebrew-English:

Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom"

This is the version I was talking about:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
(The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary)

What you are quoting isn't exactly an English translation, so is ambiguous and therefore doesn't prove anything in this argument.

Why don't you read the bible and put the pieces together instead of sticking with wacko interpretations? I posted this before, Revelations 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him." Did Jesus give himself the Revelation? I don't mean to be antagonistic, but what is up with not understanding some very basic things? It's like a ridiculous attempt for people to continue to explain Osiris, Isis, and Horus and defame both YHVH and his son by not understanding who they are respectively.

a reply to: TheChrome

Did Jesus give himself the Revelation? I don't mean to be antagonistic, but what is up with not understanding some very basic things?

Do you have an answer to your own question?

I'm not the one who is saying that Jesus and God are the same person.

I'm not giving a "wacko" interpretation but a normal Jewish translation, where they make the interpretation, not me.

You could google the verse and get a whole bunch of reasons how the King James deliberately mistranslated it.