A Dangerous Heresy

I can't believe people are still using the word heresy as if it means anything. Other than a statement that you disagree with someone about religion it is meaningless.

Religions aren't literal. Nobody ressurected from the dead or was born from a virgin.

Mary could have been a cheater and came up with a great way of denying she had sex with the collaboration of the priesthood who saw a covert op opportunity and took advantage and the story just evolved.

Anything is more likely than virgin birth.

a reply to: MrBlaq

I find it humorous you think that the serpent was the Satan. He wasn't.

You don't even know details like this and you are worried about heresy? Sounds like you have a knowledge/fact problem because every good theologian knows the difference between The Satan and the serpent and that the Eden myth is...a myth.

Even if they believe in the Bible they know Eden is a myth older than Judaism and Chaldean/Mesopotamian in origin.

Heresy. lol.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: MrBlaq

The Jewish records of the Rabbis ... the Talmud ...Jewish belief ...that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.
...
The Talmud writers mentioned Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically documented that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier ..."

Nice piece of propaganda (evidence for the use of it as well and their hatred for Jesus or anyone speaking well of him, thanks), seeing that the Jews hated the Romans and especially soldiers and that Jesus was the one who exposed the types that would write the Talmud for who they were truly serving. No coincidence they'd pick a ROMAN soldier for their slander and picture painting false story. Also noteworthy they didn't try to play the 'he never existed'-card at that time yet.

John 8:42-47 (NW, "them" are "the Jews" mentioned in verse 48 and elsewhere in the chapter):

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began,* and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

* = Or “from the beginning.”

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: stonerwilliam

i have read that it wasnt actually a virgin birth, that the greek was mistranslated and actually says "young woman".

/shrug

And wherever you read that, did they mention anything about Luke 1:34?

34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?”

Have you ever wondered why not? Why they left that out of their presentation as they discuss other verses from the Christian Greek Scriptures?

Jesus’ Birth—How and Why It Happened

oh for crying out loud, people!!!!

Mary was not a virgin - she got pregnant the same way everyone else does.
The story of her "immaculate conception" (Which, by the way, is when SHE was conceived, not when she conceived JESUS. For the story to make any sense at all, Mary needed to be exempt from the curse of Eve. Therefore, the writers knew - she needed to be sinless, so they made up this bunk about how she Mary was born a perfect person......such a load of twp I can scarcely comprehend that people still believe it)

She had to be "perfect" so that she could "bear the Son Of God". A preposterous suggestion, but there we are. How is it that you so easily realize that Star Wars or Harry Potter is FICTION, but you don't believe the Bible is just as much? It is an anthology of fantastical stories passed down from time immemorial by humans. That is ALL it is.

So anyway - Mary's mother.....HER mother....the Queen-of-Heaven Mother....was the one who was immaculately impregnated. Lots of people don't realize this little trivial detail in relation to "Jesus's" birth. The girl Mary was NOT a virgin. She had sex.

She gave birth to a child whose soul was wise beyond his parents and beyond most other people. Just like Buddha....an introverted travelling soul who knew lots and lots of stuff about life and death and all that. A total "New Age" guy.

So ---- this entire thread is disinfo. I'm sorry that some of you are unaware of that....and I'm worried about it being the case as well. It's freaking SCARY that modern, 21st century human beings believe in this nonsense!!!!!!!!

ATS seems almost to be a go-to for you all Bible-thumpers! We are supposed to be about bravely investigating and DENYING ignorance. WTH?!

I am going off memory so forgive and correct any factual errors please but:

Wasn't JC alleged to be born of a virgin too? And by too and JC I mean Julius Caesar. A Roman. And betrayed by a close friend Brutus? Judas rhymes with Brutus and is the NT version of Judah.

Judas/Judah/Jews betrayed JC. Did the Jews kill Julius Caesar? Doubtful. I'm just think typing.

Panthera or Pandera means Lion going back to Egypt through translation.

Which is a mystery initiate.

I actually don't know what to make of all this but it's interesting.

a reply to: whereislogic

How people can believe that thousands of years ago everyword someone said was saved is beyond me , Hundreds of years later in some cases words were put down or copied by scribes and entire books were cast away , why is this if they are the words of G-D or jESUS or maybe they get mixed up as things do with Apollonius of Tyana

www.truthbeknown.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I never said He was teaching the Torah or Judaism. I said at the time he was writing letters the "scriptures" he was talking about was the Tenakh,

Except that, there are no scriptures in the Tanakh that say what he was speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15. So, the Tanakh couldn't have been the "scripture" that he was referring to.

I already showed in Isaiah 53 that it says the Messiah would be killed for the sins of the people, that He would be buried (with the rich even), and that His days would be prolonged after He was buried (that's raised from the dead).

You claim the Jews say Isaiah 53 isn't about the Messiah, sure Ill give you that, they say it's not about the Messiah. But that's what they have said since 32 AD. For 1700 years prior to Jesus they all consistently said Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah.

Moral of the story.. since 32 AD they reject Jesus as their Messiah and have to bow claim it's not talking about Him, even though every verse talks about something the 4 gospels declare about His life. Paul was using the same prophecies to teach Jesus as the Messiah as Phillip did with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 18, Isaiah 53.

Reject Jesus all you want, but don't use the lies the Jewish Rabbis have been teaching since 32 AD because it was inconvenient for them.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I already showed in Isaiah 53 that it says the Messiah would be killed for the sins of the people, that He would be buried (with the rich even), and that His days would be prolonged after He was buried (that's raised from the dead).

And, I've shown you how it doesn't verify Paul's claims in 1 Corinthians 15.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Isaiah 53 doesn't describe Jesus, is not about Jesus, doesn't fit the Christian Jesus narrative. Isaiah 53's hero is a personification of the Nation of Israel under Babylonian captivity. It doesn't not claim that the suffering servant hero is a sacrificial lamb sent by God, whose blood redeems and saves. It doesn't claim his resurrection after 3 days. It doesn't claim that the suffering servant is God or "Christ".

Jesus of Nazareth doesn't/hasn't fulfill the requirements of Isaiah's Messiah.

a reply to: windword

Ahh yes, but of course, you and the rabbis since 32 AD who hate Jesus's guts are all right, and the rabbis and teachers for 1700 years before Jesus were all wrong about Isaiah 53 being about the Messiah.

It was one stroke of magical coincidence that mysteriously after 32 AD all the rabbis suddenly had a moment of clarity that Isaiah 53 wasn't about the Messiah after all!!!

WOW!!! That's coincidence!!!! I mean this is one amazing stroke of Revelation, that on the 10th of Nisan in 32 AD when Jesus pronounced spiritual blindness on the Jews, it was opposites day, and He actually pronounced spiritual understanding on the Jews and they finally figured out they had been wrong for 1700 years and Isaiah 53 really had nothing to do with the Messiah!

a reply to: MrBlaq

Its only a heresy if one believes that the word of "Jesus" is the only truth. I'm not Abrahamic in any way shape or form. Thus, it's not a heresy in my faith.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

So, you admit that the Jewish community in the 1st Century wasn't looking at Isaiah's suffering servant as a coming Messiah, but as a personification of the Nation of Israel.

Great!

Still, the prophecies of Isiah's 53, and his Suffering Servant are not met in Jesus of Nazareth. Nor, does Isaiah's hero fit the description of the biblical narrative of Jesus. It certainly doesn't tell us what scriptures Paul was referring to in 1Cor. 15.

a reply to: windword

Only the spiritually blind say that.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant Cutting through the distortions and mistranslations of this enigmatic text.

While the original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

a reply to: windword

Yeah, I get that. I'm fully aware the Rabbinical teaching since 32 AD has been it's not a Messianic prophecy. Fully aware. I put much more weight into what the rabbis said for 1700 years before Jesus when there was no motive to declare it wasn't.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Honestly, I don't think you are "fully aware" of anything that is factually based. At all.

Do you still believe that Jesus was stabbed through the heart (false) and the other crap that whatever surgeon hack and that Lee Strobel said?

You still believe that?
Do you still believe he rose from the dead?
(false)

wow

sos

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Honestly, I don't think you are "fully aware" of anything that is factually based. At all.

Hey, good to meet you too.

Do you still believe that Jesus was stabbed through the heart (false) and the other crap that whatever surgeon hack and that Lee Strobel said?

I think when you say "surgeon hack" you were referring to my post about what the world's foremost forensic pathologist said. That hack? And Lee Strobel was just a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, (now a pastor), he didn't do anything except interview experts and write books. Lee Stobel's contributions weren't as an expert himself.

You still believe that?
Do you still believe he rose from the dead?

Absolutely.

Some say that G-d is just a imaginary friend for adults

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I'm fully aware the Rabbinical teaching since 32 AD has been it's not a Messianic prophecy. Fully aware. I put much more weight into what the rabbis said for 1700 years before Jesus when there was no motive to declare it wasn't.

What 1700 years? Are you implying that Second Isaiah was written before the supposed time of Moses?

The context man, the context, Second Isaiah names the Messiah, "Cyrus", why would chapter 53 be talking about the Messiah if the Messiah is named by name?

And yeah, whatever Paul was writing about as "according to the scripture" must be from some scripture that didn't survive to be part of the Canon.

ETA: A quote from Wikipedia:

The Deutero-Isaian part of the book describes how God will make Jerusalem the centre of his worldwide rule through a royal saviour (a messiah) who will destroy her oppressor (Babylon); this messiah is the Persian king Cyrus the Great, who is merely the agent who brings about Yahweh's kingship.
Book_of_Isaiah

a reply to: windword
Good Find

The first two paragraphs lay it out:

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a beautiful, poetic song, one of the four “Servant Songs” in which the prophet describes the climactic period of world history when the Messiah will arrive and the Jewish people assume the role as the spiritual leaders of humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy foretelling how the world will react when they witness Israel's salvation in the Messianic era. The verses are presented from the perspective of world leaders, who contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews with their new realization of Israel's grandeur. After realizing how unfairly they treated the Jewish people, they will be shocked and speechless

But here's the deal, when Second Isaiah was written, with Cyrus as Messiah, he wrote it from the perspective of "THIS IS IT". He was seeing the fulfillment right then and there, not some far off future time.

Once the temple had been rebuilt and they looked around at the ZERO CHANGE IN MUNDANE EXISTENCE, they got really depressed, and started looking for another Messiah.

That's pretty much exactly the experience of the Christians. Somebody got all exited, THE KINGDOM AGE HAS BEGUN! But century after century ZERO CHANGE IN MUNDANE EXISTENCE. Let's look at some way to say "It's still future".

ETA

Isn't that called "Moving the Goalpost?" I'll look it up.

Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.
...
Moving the goalposts may also refer to feature creep, in which the completion of a product like software is not acknowledged because an evolving list of required features changes over time, which in extreme cases may even require rewriting the entire program. Thus, the goal of "completing" the product for a client may never occur.
en.wikipedia.org...