The coming of the Son of man/Signs of the end of the Age

reply to post by Rustami


So your presenting the idea Jesus is a demigod. Right?
Your logic is flawed. I can't help but laugh how you butcher the image of God. God cannot have children.

Originally posted by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
reply to post by Rustami

 

By the way. What do you think of what this Rabbi has to say?

What does the "Tree of Life" refer to in Genesis 3:24?

What is your understanding of Genesis 16:13?

Were all the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai witnesses to Genesis 2:7?

Were all the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai witnesses to the Visions described in the Book of Isaiah Chapter 6, or the Book of Daniel Chapter 7, or in the Book of Ezekiel?

Were all of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai witnesses to the Vision described by Mohammed as the "Night Journey"?

Michael

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


even now many antichrists have come

born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


The people witnessed the presence of God. God in Judaism is much different the Christianity. God cannot be a Human. It makes God weak. Don't you agree? Islam presents the same Idea as Judaism and makes Jesus as the Messiah and the Prophet without making him God or a demigod. Yet Islam still supports the Virgin Birth.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


who did I hear Michael?

reply to post by Rustami


Jesus is one of them!
Pagan origins of the Jesus myth
Jesus is not the Messiah.

The HUMAN Jewish Messiah will accomplish the following prophecies - ALL of them with no "second coming"' * The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) * Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) * The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) * He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10) * The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2) *****In other words - this must all be accomplished in a human lifetime***** * Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) * Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) * He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) * All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) * Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) * There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) * All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19) * The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) * He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) * Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5) * The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) * The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) * Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) * The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot * He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) * Jews will know the Torah without Study (Jeremiah 31:33) * He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4) * He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9).

Did Jesus do all this? I don't think so at all!

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Whaaaat?? God cannot have children?? Don't you at least believe the old testament?


Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

reply to post by iamnot


I have! Have you?
God in Judaism
Read about God in Judaism.

reply to post by St Udio


If you are saying that the Christ is a mindset and concept rather than a person, then I completely agree

But that idea would lose the control over the masses. My god if people knew their own power and realized the years of manipulation by western religions, where would we be?

reply to post by etherical waterwave


I get so tired of seeing bible verses. The story of jesus has origins in more than a few icons/deities well before his time. So this means the story of Jesus was also borrowed. No one even knows if the man ever existed and it's highly doubtful he existed as the man portrayed in the bible since the story was being passed around well before the idea of christianity was ever invented.

reply to post by Quikslvr


You know i think it is extremely obvious why christians do what they do. How anyone doesnt know why they try to convert people is odd to me. Most christians do it as a matter of wanting to share the good news they have. the problem with truth is that one persons truth isnt everyone elses.

As far as converting people go and all that and living a good life and being a beacon to others, well that gets a little fuzzy for me as a means of knowing which religion is right because they all have people who follow their said religion by beaing a beacon of love and light. In all religions their is good and evil people, well i should say good and bad or positive and negative actually. Those who embrace the best qualities of the religion and those who dont.

For me its simple. I have taken a HUGE step back and taken a objective look at them all and i can say without a doubt NON of you have gotten it right if there is even a right to get. You all embody the same things to a different degree and in yor own way and wish to be rightous end up hurting people, or condescending and judging others. Personally i am sick of religion. If god wishes me to know him then he is going to have to do a much better job than what he ahs done so far and as far as i am concerned i truly wonder where the abrahamic god was during all those many many milenium when there were written records around but none mentioning him until much much later in recorded history. Not one of you who follow these faiths have an aswer for that exceot the most obscure, and that is that it just hasnt been found yet.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

That evidence does not exist at the level of thought or argument.

It cannot possibly be conveyed to another in mere words.

You said Isaiah, Daniel, and Jesus taught this things.
I challenged you to show us in detail where these things were taught.
Your answer amounts to saying that they did not teach these things in words that can be quoted.
From the viewpoint of the rest of the world, that is the same thing as not teaching them.

reply to post by DISRAELI

From the viewpoint of the rest of the world, that is the same thing as not teaching them.

THAT is circular logic which means you use corrupt arguments.
You CANNOT know the viewpoint of the rest of the world on any matter. Besides that, try and understand what Michael is saying, mr. disinfo.

reply to post by Zamini

I will spell out my logic more clearly;
"Isaiah says so"
I ask where he says so.
Michael replies "He does not say so in words"
(This is because he doesn't know any clear statements made by Isaiah on the point, and he knows that I know that, because we have discussed this before)
To me, if Isaiah doen't say it. he doesn't teach it.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

That evidence does not exist at the level of thought or argument.

It cannot possibly be conveyed to another in mere words.

You said Isaiah, Daniel, and Jesus taught this things.

The problem here is that all you have are the words written in some book. You have no Knowledge as to where those words came from. They originated in Revelations, something that cannot be explained in tens of thousands of words. Cryptic references can be made to those experiences of specific Revelations; and those cryptic references are quite sufficient to demonstrate that those people have received those Revelations to others who have received the same Revelations. It is an issue of recognition on the basis of having the same experience; something which you simply do not have.

There was a time that I did not have a clue as to the meaning of Jesus' reply to the Sadducees. I had heard and read the 'explanation' of the metaphysical Christian philosophers. But it made no real sense to me.

Then I received the Revelation of the "resurrection"; and, several months later, decided to read that argument again.

And, voila, "Oh, that's what he meant. Now it all makes perfect sense."

You are still at the level of not having a clue as to what that argument consists of. You are simply too arrogant to acknowledge that you are relying upon the 'explanation' of others rather than a specific Revelation.

I challenged you to show us in detail where these things were taught.

You would look directly at precisely the same words I am looking at....

And you would have no idea in the world what is being described, because you have never received the Revelation.

Your answer amounts to saying that they did not teach these things in words that can be quoted.

No. What I am saying is that the Revelation itself cannot be conveyed in words.

Take the Revelation of the Memory of Creation described in Genesis 2:7.

Moses did not hear the words that this is the way the Creation occurred.

He received the Memory that this is the way the Creation occurred.

Now, would I ever explain to you, either in writing or through spoken words, what that means?

Not merely no, but hell no.

Why?

Because, by claiming an 'authority' to explain the Revelation of John, you are claiming to have already received this specific Revelation.

But you have not received that Revelation.

You are a liar.

And, as Jesus observed, "Satan is the father of lies."

From the viewpoint of the rest of the world, that is the same thing as not teaching them.

Such a belief must certainly be pleasurable for you.

How unfortunate that it is contrary to the Truth of the matter.

Michael

I cant believe how hard headed some idiots may be. Im not going to say who exactly but you people know what im talking about.

Somebody predicts whats happening in our world right now so accurately that theres no denying it, then some morons come and deny it having any possibility whatsoever. Its like saying theres no evil in the world, because good and evil cannot exist without each other. Positive and negative, wake up you ignorant dog.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Do you believe the concept of Satan in Judaism?
My question to you is to tell me what you think of this article.
Satan in Judaism

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by St Udio

 

Hey, St,

I think you have hit on something amazing -

So who or what is Jesus? Is Jesus just an idea to make us act nicely?

IMHO yup.

Originally posted by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
reply to post by Michael Cecil

My question to you is to tell me what you think of this article.
Satan in Judaism

What do I 'think' of the article?

It is like arithmetic in comparison to the mathematics of Relativity Theory or string theory.

Satan has to do with the origin of the 'fallen' consciousness. The 'fallen' consciousness is the dualistic consciousness.

The 'fallen' or dualistic consciousness was not Created by God; it was created by the 'movement' of self-reflection which is the origin of the duality. (For further information about the dualistic consciousness, you might want to do a little investigation into the "phenomenal" consciousness, or the consciousness of illusion of the Buddhist and Eastern esoteric traditions; as well as the teaching of Krishnamurti; who successfully recognizes that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is involved in the propagation of duality, conflict and violence; but who is unaware of the origin of the duality in the 'movement' of self-reflection and the consciousness of the "self" rather than the consciousness of the 'thinker'.)

This 'movement' of self-reflection is symbolized in Genesis 3 as the "serpent" and in Revelations 12:9 as the "great dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan".

This 'movement' of self-reflection creates the consciousness of the "self", referred to in Genesis 3 as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; and, in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the sea" (Revelations 13:1). See, also, the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes which describe his experience of the consciousness of the "self" as 'falling, all of a sudden, into deep water'.

The "fig leaves" that Adam and Eve cover themselves with, after having tasted of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", refer to the thought of the 'thinker' and the thoughts of that 'thinker'; which is symbolized in the Revelation of John as the "beast of the earth" (Revelations 13:11). (See, also, Saying #37 in the Gospel of Thomas.)

Thus, there is the 'movement' of self-reflection, resulting in the 'fallen' consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker', which is opposed to the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God', which is symbolized by the "Tree of Life" in Genesis 3:24.

The conflict between "Michael and the dragon", then, is a conflict at the level of consciousness between the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' and the 'fallen' consciousness originating in self-reflection.

At least the Jewish mystics have some Knowledge of this kind of thing.

But Judaism in general?

Hell no.

Michael

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Zamini

 

I will spell out my logic more clearly;
"Isaiah says so"
I ask where he says so.
Michael replies "He does not say so in words"
(This is because he doesn't know any clear statements made by Isaiah on the point, and he knows that I know that, because we have discussed this before)

(Sigh)

Anyone with even so much as two active brain cells can look up the references to the "resurrection" in Isaiah.

They are cryptic references. For example, "I seal this Revelation in the heart of my disciples"--the word "heart" ALONE being sufficient to cryptically refer to the Revelation in such a way as it can be recognized by others who have received that Revelation.

They do not explain precisely what the Revelation is.

Why not?

Because of the MURDEROUSNESS of the liars: those who teach that the "resurrection" refers to the raising of a dead physical body from the grave. Because the books would have been DESTROYED if these things had been written down. (And, as vicious as you are in your rejection of this Truth, I don't exclude the possibility that you may very well have been involved in your previous lives in destroying these writings.)

Just like the Dead Sea Scrolls had to be hidden (and have now been COMPLETELY disinterpreted); just like the writings of the Gnostics and the Albigensians were destroyed by the Roman church.

Michael