Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i'm guessing, (and please let me know if i'm wrong) that rev's intent is that, when you stated this...

you were refering to things described in the hebrew text, and the anme "lucifer" isn't hebrew. maybe he's suggesting you keep within the framework of your discussion!? (meaning, what's "lucifer's" hebrew name? use that in this sentence - follow me?)

probably not a big deal, but it helps, for the sake of consistency. that's what i took from it, anyway...

Yes, empirical consistancy, Truth for Truth's sake....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand now.

but then again "Peter", "Steven", "Matthew" etc etc etc are not Hebrew names. they are translated names. I mean nobody in here is calling Jesus "Yeshuah" either - even though thats technically correct. I was unaware that this was a stumbling block for people....

I clearly stated that Lucifer is a Deity from Italy (pre-roman)(I could look into it).

The Jews don't say that.

They say Shitan / Shitan-El...

and the Ango-sised version is SATAN.

Lucifer, as a name has no power over the Advisary.

I was not tripped up, but feared for other seekers of knowledge.

As Occult study IS a common pass time for many Goth kids, I fell justified on this digression, of Truth for Truth's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clearly stated that Lucifer is a Deity from Italy (pre-roman)(I could look into it).

The Jews don't say that.

They say Shitan / Shitan-El...

and the Ango-sised version is SATAN.

Lucifer, as a name has no power over the Advisary.

I was not tripped up, but feared for other seekers of knowledge.

As Occult study IS a common pass time for many Goth kids, I fell justified on this digression, of Truth for Truth's sake.

Rev., if it helps, tell me what you beleive about the biblical descriptives of the advasry of YHWH - whomever he may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey, steven, got a question for ya...

in this post you made, you listed A,B,C, etc... i'm curious, (because this might be one of the things that trips me up when we talk about this stuff) are you creating that list with this logical intent? (following)

accepting that A) is true, then B);

accepting that B) is true, then C);

etc...

because i think that's where i tend to find myself taking issue - insomuch as i'm thinking, "well, steven, A) might *not* be true", and then i argue/debate from that point. if you're building your posts in the above manner, i'll try to change the way i read/interpret them, and hopefully this will cut down on unnecessary confusion/antagonism, because for some reason, the thought that you might be following this "process" hadn't occurred to me before now...

this was a cool post Torn and I appreciate it very much. I feel like for the first time in a long time...you and I are starting to understand each other a bit better, which I had thought up until a day or two ago was a lost cause.

I do have a tendency to build points the way you've just described, and I never even realized it to be honest, i'm just sort of thinking out loud and typing as I go. Whenever I'm looking at any faith based or bible based "truth" as I interpret it....I seldom look at JUST the subject in discussion. Although I might not do a good job of it Im always looking at and trygin to describe a much bigger picture, which is why i have a hard time answerign questions such as say "which parts do you take literally and which parts do you take allegorically?" to me - my mind does not intentionally split things up - its all very much based on instinct buit up over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Occult study IS a common pass time for many Goth kids, I fell justified on this digression, of Truth for Truth's sake.

dont make me quote pontius pilate and ask you "what is truth????"

that was a joke.

I know you consider yourself a studied man. I accept that. I likewise consider myself a studied man. I dont know if our motivations behind how and what we pursue parrallel one another, but thats ok.

truth for truth's sake.....for a man like me truth is consistency and clarity as i move toward a specific legacy, investing myself in the lives of others and implimenting elements of risk for the sake of that which I feel called to.

I'm willing to die for it. I'm willing to stand on this side over here while the crowd stands against me over on that side over there. I'm willing to sacrifice what I have to to respond. And I'm willing to face myself and say "well....I fucked this one up pretty good".

...But i'm not trying to conquer you - or dismiss you, or shelve you. To me knowledge without life application that bears truly fruit is rather a frustrating course of life....but that is me. I beleive Rev...that you know what you know. and if it makes any sense....so do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev., if it helps, tell me what you beleive about the biblical descriptives of the advasry of YHWH - whomever he may be.

I will attempt to go into this, later, (as for now, I must procure some coffee...)

AND my point is missed AGAIN.

YOU quoted 'Hebrew scripture', there is no such scripture.

What I believe in, was not necessary information.

I was speaking on FACT not BELIEF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont make me quote pontius pilate and ask you "what is truth????"

that was a joke.

I know you consider yourself a studied man. I accept that. I likewise consider myself a studied man. I dont know if our motivations behind how and what we pursue parrallel one another, but thats ok.

truth for truth's sake.....for a man like me truth is consistency and clarity as i move toward a specific legacy, investing myself in the lives of others and implimenting elements of risk for the sake of that which I feel called to.

I'm willing to die for it. I'm willing to stand on this side over here while the crowd stands against me over on that side over there. I'm willing to sacrifice what I have to to respond. And I'm willing to face myself and say "well....I fucked this one up pretty good".

...But i'm not trying to conquer you - or dismiss you, or shelve you. To me knowledge without life application that bears truly fruit is rather a frustrating course of life....but that is me. I beleive Rev...that you know what you know. and if it makes any sense....so do I.

I have plenty of life experiences to draw upon.

You keep saying we are not on the same side...

In a world FULL of ATHEISTS you should not push away the hand of a fellow seeker...

..I understand, you are well studied, and not unintelligent...

..or I would not be speaking to you... RIGHT?

I love Christ... I call on HIM in times of thanx and need and even to just say HI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will attempt to go into this, later, (as for now, I must procure some coffee...)

AND my point is missed AGAIN.

YOU quoted 'Hebrew scripture', there is no such scripture.

What I believe in, was not necessary information.

I was speaking on FACT not BELIEF.

ok your just goign to have to unpack this for me with alotttttttttttt more detail when you get time.

there is plenty of Hebrew scripture describing the advisary of God, his fall, some fo his names, his inevitable end, his dual prophesy with the king of Tyre, etc etc etc. all that is factual. but even if it was not....because the course of this discussion among many of us has been an acceptance of the beleif that is held by certain parties....I think we are all giving each other some leeway here on proving hard fact. Im still totally lost in understanding your long term goal here.

so youve lost me bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, since you posted this then Id like you to exemplify these points in greater detail if you dont mind:

the bible being just ONE story. WHAT is the story?

the fact that its just a story at all. there is no history in it? No measurable evidence?

these thefts you are alluding to. What got ripped off and reused besides the Noah account?

jewish stoners - who were they - what did they write specifically and what were they smoking?

hippie Jesus -vs-Angry God-vs the Jesus in the book of revalations: who's more macho and pissed?

"Most" of the stories in the bible directed at imporiving our nature: which ones? what do those stories say?

It IS the story of the Jewish people .. i guess you can call it History but from only the Jewish perspective and the way a handfull of people interpreted events (pretty subjective) for understanding i shall call them the FOX news of Jewish antiquity

where as the Egyptian would be AL Jazira ... pagan europe's would be BBC .. and so on and forth

Most of the Teachings embeded in diferent Methaphores circulated orally in pretty much all the cultures of the world ... Old Europe has a lot of those stories ... not in writing i admit , but in folclore (for example i would use my Tribe , The Dacians ... and their zamolxes the ONE god to rule born HUMAN and the prediction of his return to rule over His subjects. let alone the travels in the underworld (death) and His ''resurection" into godhood ...) and as far as a timeline cca 7000 B. C.

well the Jewish stoners are those who dwelled in and arownd the temple (the only ones with education high enough to write) and i call them stoners beacause the oil used in both the lanterns and the ointment was 80% hemp oil ... ok

and earlier (before the temple was built) hemp oil was used in preparing the food .... talking about special brownies

Best example is KING David (anointed with that oil) with wonderful dreams .

and Hippie Jesus ... ok ... let's see ... you get a slap turn your cheeck

someone asks you for your coat ... give them your shirt

those statements where WITNESSED by more than one person

now the revelation .. was written in a cave mostly with instructions on the church ... and John used strong words as to impress the new sprout that the cristian church was at that age (with lots of competition from established practices all troughout europe) Plus there may be (as in the case with the oracle of Delphi) that he was inhailing nonlethal amounts of methane .. as the Isle of Pathmos sits in a very active gelological areea.

pretty much all the allegories that Jesus preached .. are examples of morality and good behaviour ..

or reaction to "sin". And in the old testament moses Abraham Elijah Adam Eve (pretty much all the examples ) in there are people's lives and how bad decisions led them to "fall" and ultimatley (with the help of the deity) "repent"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world FULL of ATHEISTS you should not push away the hand of a fellow seeker...

OMFG RUN the ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You outnumber Atheists by a huge margin, FYI. People of religion run this country, not the atheists. Nothing to be afraid of geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You outnumber Atheists by a huge margin. And does that sentence imply you'll be taking sides? Sure sounds like it, and that's not very nice.

again, i'm only guessing, but i think he meant to imply that (and allow me to paraphrase) "in a world of people who don't believe in anything related to "deity", don't dismiss/deny another who is seeking spiritual understanding as well."

of course, i've been wrong many times before, too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, i'm only guessing, but i think he meant to imply that (and allow me to paraphrase) "in a world of people who don't believe in anything related to "deity", don't dismiss/deny another who is seeking spiritual understanding as well."

of course, i've been wrong many times before, too...

I think there are a lot of nasty connotations to take from that sentence, caps lock notwithstanding, but I'll turn my brain off.

And you're probably right. But if I were to do that with the word Christians in all caps a reign of fury would come down upon me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, i'm only guessing, but i think he meant to imply that (and allow me to paraphrase) "in a world of people who don't believe in anything related to "deity", don't dismiss/deny another who is seeking spiritual understanding as well."

of course, i've been wrong many times before, too...

Yes...

thanx again Torn... I should have included everyone that does not believe Jesus ever existed,

or that Jesus just doesn't matter to (like 'pagans' and shamen), as well as ALL the fence sitters, Nihilists,

and the nefarious Black Magi..

(OOPS, I made that smily face above this post, I did not notice the wife was logged in)

edited for accident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS the story of the Jewish people .. i guess you can call it History but from only the Jewish perspective and the way a handfull of people interpreted events (pretty subjective) for understanding i shall call them the FOX news of Jewish antiquity

where as the Egyptian would be AL Jazira ... pagan europe's would be BBC .. and so on and forth

Most of the Teachings embeded in diferent Methaphores circulated orally in pretty much all the cultures of the world ... Old Europe has a lot of those stories ... not in writing i admit , but in folclore (for example i would use my Tribe , The Dacians ... and their zamolxes the ONE god to rule born HUMAN and the prediction of his return to rule over His subjects. let alone the travels in the underworld (death) and His ''resurection" into godhood ...) and as far as a timeline cca 7000 B. C.

well the Jewish stoners are those who dwelled in and arownd the temple (the only ones with education high enough to write) and i call them stoners beacause the oil used in both the lanterns and the ointment was 80% hemp oil ... ok

and earlier (before the temple was built) hemp oil was used in preparing the food .... talking about special brownies

Best example is KING David (anointed with that oil) with wonderful dreams .

and Hippie Jesus ... ok ... let's see ... you get a slap turn your cheeck

someone asks you for your coat ... give them your shirt

those statements where WITNESSED by more than one person

now the revelation .. was written in a cave mostly with instructions on the church ... and John used strong words as to impress the new sprout that the cristian church was at that age (with lots of competition from established practices all troughout europe) Plus there may be (as in the case with the oracle of Delphi) that he was inhailing nonlethal amounts of methane .. as the Isle of Pathmos sits in a very active gelological areea.

pretty much all the allegories that Jesus preached .. are examples of morality and good behaviour ..

or reaction to "sin". And in the old testament moses Abraham Elijah Adam Eve (pretty much all the examples ) in there are people's lives and how bad decisions led them to "fall" and ultimatley (with the help of the deity) "repent"

for lack of time then - your thoughts on Jesus words where he said that he was the only way to the father?

and again on his words where he siad "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"?

or "those who are lukewarm i will vomit out of my mouth?"

as for John the beloved - he was not the first to be exiled to Patmos.

I dont know of any other cryptic writings born from patmos.

now that I think about it if John was out of his mind....why does he not preach a differetn gospel altogethor? Why is there still such consistnecy with the whole?

and why do others such as Paul or Peter in his right mind - not rebuke the teachings/writings of John?

all people were consecrated with oil.

not all people saw visions.

oil on the head did not originate with David.

it is my understanding that olive oil was the source of many things, as were olvies and groves of olives....im curious as to why the ancient texts dont talk about fields of hemp?

and even if your 100% right on hemp oil.....dude Ive done it all in terms of drugs - and Ive never experienced what you seem to be suggesting. moving on...

history is history.

a tremendous amount of that "jewish perspective" has been dug up by archeologists. And I used an example (there are others) of historians such as Josephus, who not fit as neatly into the Jewish perspective - who's testimony supports the biblical model - eventhe ressurection of christ.

and then finnaly....on these other man/diety comparisons (im aware of just some of them) - did the focal point of these legends surround the need for an intercessor to bridge the gap between fallen man and a Holy God? Because that is a mega consistent theme throughout all of scripture. So is that borrowed or a new twist or???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG RUN the ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You outnumber Atheists by a huge margin, FYI. People of religion run this country, not the atheists. Nothing to be afraid of geez.

I think that was a little bit forward Pandora....I didint get that from his post.

lets stay level on this thread.....because its been nice to have a good one going with no anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for lack of time then - your thoughts on Jesus words where he said that he was the only way to the father?

and again on his words where he siad "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"?

or "those who are lukewarm i will vomit out of my mouth?"

as for John the beloved - he was not the first to be exiled to Patmos.

I dont know of any other cryptic writings born from patmos.

now that I think about it if John was out of his mind....why does he not preach a differetn gospel altogethor? Why is there still such consistnecy with the whole?

and why do others such as Paul or Peter in his right mind - not rebuke the teachings/writings of John?

all people were consecrated with oil.

not all people saw visions.

oil on the head did not originate with David.

it is my understanding that olive oil was the source of many things, as were olvies and groves of olives....im curious as to why the ancient texts dont talk about fields of hemp?

and even if your 100% right on hemp oil.....dude Ive done it all in terms of drugs - and Ive never experienced what you seem to be suggesting. moving on...

history is history.

a tremendous amount of that "jewish perspective" has been dug up by archeologists. And I used an example (there are others) of historians such as Josephus, who not fit as neatly into the Jewish perspective - who's testimony supports the biblical model - eventhe ressurection of christ.

and then finnaly....on these other man/diety comparisons (im aware of just some of them) - did the focal point of these legends surround the need for an intercessor to bridge the gap between fallen man and a Holy God? Because that is a mega consistent theme throughout all of scripture. So is that borrowed or a new twist or???

those lines where directed at the Pharieseis .. from the temple .. the interpretesrs and mediums in between his people and his father .... he came to cut the middle man .... since the middle man brings about only coruption and misshaps ... you only need to take a look at current cristianity or any other religion that uses an intermediary to see that ... and he proclamed himself the sun of God well .. we are all the sons .. and daughters of god period. he taught us how to be hippies .. how to respect each other and to work with each other about our human evolution. and the sword .. well in many interpretations in not one that cuts you in half or draws blood (those who pick up the sword die by the sword ) but one of the word and actions by what someone governes his/hers lives.

Cryptic yes beacause if he was to say anything directly to or about the roman empire, he would have gotten waked.

and no the APOKALIPSE is purely (some say ) a prediction of the future ... may it be litterary (i frown at that idea) or methaphoric. Now i ask could this religion have such a big impact if not for the value of prediction ... and the psichological elemets of doomsday . NO , just like a good movie you have to keep your audience at the edje of the seats.

maybe others used diffrent caves .. really i mean .. maybe he was more subceptible to methane emissions.

beacause john was the LAST one to DIE.

yea so the others could not deny his writtings.

Yes Paul and Peter where 1 Dead at the time the Apocalipsa was written and 2. At thousands of kilometers away.

there is absolutley NO similarities in between the gospels and the Apocalipsa

2000% diffrent ballgame

(as a footnote that book almost didn't make the bible)

Archeologically it was discovered that they DID use hemp oil .. over time and in mass quantities it does affect your cognitive system . It was easy to produce .. much so than olive oil . and to be honest i think it was used MOSTLY beacause of the halicunogenic effects. And musrooms and diffrent roots from desert area that all have those powers .. i mean this people the ones that where in the "upper eshalon" of Jewish comunities .. they would endulge in the exotic. Just for the fact that it was not common for the folk to do so.

well hemp dosen't have the same effect on everyone .. i for example am alergic ... and i crawl in people's laps beacause i'm so freeked out (ask REV.)

(as a second footnote vampire is not dude ) :)

Jesus is not the only kid in the block to resurect ... Plato "the tracians .. that tribe of people that know the secrets on how to put a stopper to death" and i just brought the example of Zamolxes the human who traveled the uderworld for 3 years

before emerging a GOD... the Blajini (the Draco tamers and Dragon flyers) ergo Elijah .. and his chariot.

ok the evidence was dug out in a desert enviroment ...

perfect for storing parchments and scrolls

in the more humid regions there was only one way to keep record .. on walls ... carved in stones

i mean can you imagine the mountains you would need for engraving a bible ... you'll pretty much run out of space

as for the mayas they did engrave lots of information on stone .. and (surprizing even on parchment) that survived

and even the parchments survived .. they're just not public .. since the Catholic Conquistadores pretty much censored it

and i'm sorry a few caves by golgotha (dump) are far from archeological evidence

there's no less than 10 (maybe more) possible locations of the tomb.

who sais anything about the man falling ...

let's say by absurd i fall ... now ... as a human ... what do i do ... get up ... dust myself .. look on what i triped .. and move forward .. keeping in mind to avoid those obsticles in my life

And there is NO NEED for an advocate ... LIve as a good person .. take Jesus like a great example for man ... and then YOUR ACTIONS will vindicate you. Great Teacher .. Great Rabi .. the son of GOD .. certanly

am I the son of GOD ... for sure

and to add a little sugar on top .. my name IS E-MANU-EL

i'm done with this subject ... fell free to think what you think

as that good book said .. "My FATHER's Temple has MANY rooms"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see patterns...

We are ALL the MOSHIACH!!!!!

( that's Hebrew for messiah)

What's this feeling?

My love will rip a hole in the ceiling

Givin' myself to you from the essence of my being

Sing to my God all these songs of love and healing

Want Moshiach now so it's time we start revealing

MATISYAHU, King Without A Crown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

those lines where directed at the Pharieseis .. from the temple .. the interpretesrs and mediums in between his people and his father .... he came to cut the middle man .... since the middle man brings about only coruption and misshaps ... you only need to take a look at current cristianity or any other religion that uses an intermediary to see that ... and he proclamed himself the sun of God well .. we are all the sons .. and daughters of god period. he taught us how to be hippies .. how to respect each other and to work with each other about our human evolution. and the sword .. well in many interpretations in not one that cuts you in half or draws blood (those who pick up the sword die by the sword ) but one of the word and actions by what someone governes his/hers lives.

Cryptic yes beacause if he was to say anything directly to or about the roman empire, he would have gotten waked.

and no the APOKALIPSE is purely (some say ) a prediction of the future ... may it be litterary (i frown at that idea) or methaphoric. Now i ask could this religion have such a big impact if not for the value of prediction ... and the psichological elemets of doomsday . NO , just like a good movie you have to keep your audience at the edje of the seats.

maybe others used diffrent caves .. really i mean .. maybe he was more subceptible to methane emissions.

beacause john was the LAST one to DIE.

yea so the others could not deny his writtings.

Yes Paul and Peter where 1 Dead at the time the Apocalipsa was written and 2. At thousands of kilometers away.

there is absolutley NO similarities in between the gospels and the Apocalipsa

2000% diffrent ballgame

(as a footnote that book almost didn't make the bible)

Archeologically it was discovered that they DID use hemp oil .. over time and in mass quantities it does affect your cognitive system . It was easy to produce .. much so than olive oil . and to be honest i think it was used MOSTLY beacause of the halicunogenic effects. And musrooms and diffrent roots from desert area that all have those powers .. i mean this people the ones that where in the "upper eshalon" of Jewish comunities .. they would endulge in the exotic. Just for the fact that it was not common for the folk to do so.

well hemp dosen't have the same effect on everyone .. i for example am alergic ... and i crawl in people's laps beacause i'm so freeked out (ask REV.)

(as a second footnote vampire is not dude ) :)

Jesus is not the only kid in the block to resurect ... Plato "the tracians .. that tribe of people that know the secrets on how to put a stopper to death" and i just brought the example of Zamolxes the human who traveled the uderworld for 3 years

before emerging a GOD... the Blajini (the Draco tamers and Dragon flyers) ergo Elijah .. and his chariot.

ok the evidence was dug out in a desert enviroment ...

perfect for storing parchments and scrolls

in the more humid regions there was only one way to keep record .. on walls ... carved in stones

i mean can you imagine the mountains you would need for engraving a bible ... you'll pretty much run out of space

as for the mayas they did engrave lots of information on stone .. and (surprizing even on parchment) that survived

and even the parchments survived .. they're just not public .. since the Catholic Conquistadores pretty much censored it

and i'm sorry a few caves by golgotha (dump) are far from archeological evidence

there's no less than 10 (maybe more) possible locations of the tomb.

who sais anything about the man falling ...

let's say by absurd i fall ... now ... as a human ... what do i do ... get up ... dust myself .. look on what i triped .. and move forward .. keeping in mind to avoid those obsticles in my life

And there is NO NEED for an advocate ... LIve as a good person .. take Jesus like a great example for man ... and then YOUR ACTIONS will vindicate you. Great Teacher .. Great Rabi .. the son of GOD .. certanly

am I the son of GOD ... for sure

and to add a little sugar on top .. my name IS E-MANU-EL

i'm done with this subject ... fell free to think what you think

as that good book said .. "My FATHER's Temple has MANY rooms"

what I find pussling in all of this is that you seem to omit christs representation of himself.

old testament fortells of the messiah being crushed and peirced for our inequiteis - he was to be sacrificed.

Christ himslef spoke of this happenign to him.

and think about it -he only had 3 qand half years to work his mojo in an occupied state - Im quite sure he KNEW what the roman presence meant, and that the gathering of his followersd woudl raise their ire. Why then did he not try to prevent crowds of thousands t=from gathering to him? that does not make sense for a man who needs to wathc himself lest he fall under the crutiny of Rome.

Yes you are absoltuely correct in his words being the sword - division - conflict - anger - all of these thgins and yes they were directed at the Sanhedrin but not only the sanhedrin -0 the legalsist in general.

my confusion in your position is that Christ - over and iover again - placed himself in the position of mediator.

he did not teach his apostles tjhat they were his equals.

your wrogn about a few caves by Golgotha. do just a basic word search for biblical archeological evidence. you'll find scores of artifacts and digs related to both old testament and new testament times - im not focusing just on Jesus. and if it was a few caves in a dump ONLY - (and it definately is not) why would we dismiss that? Its hard eveidence thousands of years old. so what if it came froma dump?

you just threw a few parralels of diety ideas/stories at me, and ai get that.

but I repsectfully submit to you that the only similarities are death, men, and god, something that is standard information. What I have been talkign about is the common thread between old testament and new testametn writings - the NEED - the NECCESITY for - a divine mediator in order to allow us to enter in to God's presence. Not only did Jesus teach this but so did old testament prophets. THIS is where the parralels do not support each other. Im not asking you to beleive what i do - seriously. But i AM asking you NOT TO OMIT the critical, central theme of Judeo christianity when you are trying to address it.

hemp oil and all.....its not doign it for me. yoru talkign about alot of stoned people all the time every day during normal day to day activities then, and I dont see evidence of this whether christ was there or not....but in terms of upper echelon people ahving access to this sort of thing.....look at the people that he gathered around him. they were not upper echelon people, the were the dregs of society for the most part. Paul himself warns deacons not to be partakers of strong drink, to be of sober mind, to be married to just one wife.....that to me does not line up with stoner jew patriarchs of the bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what I find pussling in all of this is that you seem to omit christs representation of himself.

old testament fortells of the messiah being crushed and peirced for our inequiteis - he was to be sacrificed.

Christ himslef spoke of this happenign to him.

most likely because he knew it would happen to anyone who stood up to the authority of the time, no matter the particular topic they were "preaching". it's not like crucifiction wasn't common during that time - after all, weren't there other people curcified alongside jesus?

and think about it -he only had 3 qand half years to work his mojo in an occupied state - Im quite sure he KNEW what the roman presence meant, and that the gathering of his followersd woudl raise their ire. Why then did he not try to prevent crowds of thousands t=from gathering to him? that does not make sense for a man who needs to wathc himself lest he fall under the crutiny of Rome.
to my eyes, it could be called, "martyrdom" - we see it all the time in radical sects, most of which in the news today, happen to be muslim extremists. why not martyrdom for another religion?

my confusion in your position is that Christ - over and iover again - placed himself in the position of mediator.

he did not teach his apostles tjhat they were his equals.

again, to me, this makes sense. if we look at this from a pessimistic viewpoint - he had aspirations, (whatever they might have been) and it would have been wise for him to maintain a superior position to the people he was trying to "convince". after all, if he convinced everyone they were his equal, who would have followed him!? we see the same behavior in cult leaders like david koresh, or jim jones, was it? (koolaid-guy) (they're the only ones that comes to mind offhand)

you just threw a few parralels of diety ideas/stories at me, and ai get that.

but I repsectfully submit to you that the only similarities are death, men, and god, something that is standard information. What I have been talkign about is the common thread between old testament and new testametn writings - the NEED - the NECCESITY for - a divine mediator in order to allow us to enter in to God's presence. Not only did Jesus teach this but so did old testament prophets. THIS is where the parralels do not support each other. Im not asking you to beleive what i do - seriously. But i AM asking you NOT TO OMIT the critical, central theme of Judeo christianity when you are trying to address it.

again, from a pessimistic viewpoint, had jesus known all of this prophesy, he could have chosen to set himself up as that "mediator" intentionally, to make a name for himself, and to leave some kind of legacy. and as for ommitting the central theme, i do agree, but i also think that old and new testament (meaning, the bible) shouldn't be the only source quoted during a discussion on this subject. it's one of the reasons people are supposed to have multiple sources when doing research - the sources corroberate one another. one can't cite one source as self-corrobertating - that's like saying, "the bible is the word of god" (how do you know that?) because god said so in the bible. (how do you know that the bible is true?) because the bible is the word of god", (how do you know that?) because god said so in the bible. etc...

ok, in no way am i saying this is what i necessarily think - i'm saying that from a certain viewpoint, these pesimistic views are plausible, even if unlikely. these were just my thoughts on the subject, as i read steven's post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(steven)

what I find pussling in all of this is that you seem to omit christs representation of himself.

old testament fortells of the messiah being crushed and peirced for our inequities - he was to be sacrificed.

Christ himself spoke of this happening to him.

most likely because he knew it would happen to anyone who stood up to the authority of the time, no matter the particular topic they were "preaching". it's not like crucifiction wasn't common during that time - after all, weren't there other people curcified alongside jesus?

I think the argument here from Vamp is that Christ would have logically protected himself Mike. And what I'm saying in opposition to that is that he basically never did that - he stayed on course and was in constant conflict with the authorities of the day - which would inevitably lead him into Roman hands. He even went so far as to stand in the temple and teach (remember he was not a Levite), and to accept public worship, and to claim authority to forgive sins. What Im saying is that what he did was actually willfully controversial and stirred up angst. I cant tie in the self protective ideas with what he did and how he did it. YES cricifixion was around at the time - Im in agreement with you.

QUOTE(steven)

and think about it -he only had 3 qand half years to work his mojo in an occupied state - Im quite sure he KNEW what the roman presence meant, and that the gathering of his followersd would raise their ire. Why then did he not try to prevent crowds of thousands from gathering to him? that does not make sense for a man who needs to wathc himself lest he fall under the crutiny of Rome.

to my eyes, it could be called, "martyrdom" - we see it all the time in radical sects, most of which in the news today, happen to be muslim extremists. why not martyrdom for another religion?

because in the case of Christ (destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days) everything he did as the aleeged Messiah would hinge on his being raised from the dead. he did not seek to be martyrd - your first true christian martyr was Steven, a mortal man who died and stayed dead. Christ sought to be killed at the appointed time to desiplay his full authority as divine - by raising from the dead. Without that ressurection process Christianity is worthless.

QUOTE(steven)

my confusion in your position is that Christ - over and over again - placed himself in the position of mediator.

he did not teach his apostles that they were his equals.

again, to me, this makes sense. if we look at this from a pessimistic viewpoint - he had aspirations, (whatever they might have been) and it would have been wise for him to maintain a superior position to the people he was trying to "convince". after all, if he convinced everyone they were his equal, who would have followed him!? we see the same behavior in cult leaders like david koresh, or jim jones, was it? (koolaid-guy) (they're the only ones that comes to mind offhand)

K Mike - Vamps argument to me is that we are all equals, Christ was the son of God, and likewsie WE are all sons of God in equal terms. My argument is that no - this was not the position Christ took - his position was one of authority - look at the texts - the crowds were most often amazed not at just the miracles he performed - but most important - it was the AUTHORITY he taught with that amazed them - it was completley brazenand yet it was balanced and irrepressible. Your right about Jim Jones and david koresh - they asserted themselves over their followers but watch HOW they did it:

They isolated them from their surrounding culture and peer groups - Christ did not.

They RE-interpreted scritpure - Christ did not

They seperated themselves from the local authority and did not yeild to them - Christ did not

They split followers from their wives and children by force and intimidation - Christ did not

The set up compounds and secure people cattling processes - Christ did not

They had arms and money - Christ had neither

They were given to chemical addicitons - Christ did not

they abused women and children in many forms - Christ did not

QUOTE(steven)

you just threw a few parralels of diety ideas/stories at me, and I get that.

but I repsectfully submit to you that the only similarities are death, men, and god, something that is standard information. What I have been talking about is the common thread between old testament and new testament writings - the NEED - the NECCESITY for - a divine mediator in order to allow us to enter in to God's presence. Not only did Jesus teach this but so did old testament prophets. THIS is where the parralels do not support each other. Im not asking you to beleive what i do - seriously. But i AM asking you NOT TO OMIT the critical, central theme of Judeo christianity when you are trying to address it.

again, from a pessimistic viewpoint, had jesus known all of this prophesy, he could have chosen to set himself up as that "mediator" intentionally, to make a name for himself, and to leave some kind of legacy. and as for ommitting the central theme, i do agree, but i also think that old and new testament (meaning, the bible) shouldn't be the only source quoted during a discussion on this subject. it's one of the reasons people are supposed to have multiple sources when doing research - the sources corroberate one another. one can't cite one source as self-corrobertating - that's like saying, "the bible is the word of god" (how do you know that?) because god said so in the bible. (how do you know that the bible is true?) because the bible is the word of god", (how do you know that?) because god said so in the bible. etc...

I understand this thinking Mike. And I encourage you to do the research you feel is balanced. I tend to for the most part stay on point with cannonized scripture because that is what is most often called to question - so because I trust it i simply work up from there.

Also consider that Christ DID indeed know all of the over 200 prophesies concernign the coming Messiah. K - logically, all he had to do was manipulate over 200 circumstances to "be the one" right? Thats logical. Only the problem is, many of those FULFILLED prophesies would have been far beyond his control, things such as:

the place of his birth

the fact that as a child he would be exiled to egypt

that during the crucifixion they would not break his legs as was the roman custom to do

that they would perice his side with a spear

that he would be betrayed for 30 peices of silver (what the priest paid Judas)

that that money would later be used to buy a potter's field (he was long dead by then)

ok, in no way am i saying this is what i necessarily think - i'm saying that from a certain viewpoint, these pesimistic views are plausible, even if unlikely. these were just my thoughts on the subject, as i read steven's post...

Your right - these pessimistic views are COMPLETELY plausible, I have no issue with that. But in fairness neither side can really be proven or disproven. and that leads us back to the stalemate of Faith -versus Hard Fact - and then the inevitble choice of where to stand. Personally, I obviously beleive it - all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They isolated them from their surrounding culture and peer groups - Christ did not.

They RE-interpreted scritpure - Christ did not

They seperated themselves from the local authority and did not yeild to them - Christ did not

They split followers from their wives and children by force and intimidation - Christ did not

The set up compounds and secure people cattling processes - Christ did not

They had arms and money - Christ had neither

They were given to chemical addicitons - Christ did not

they abused women and children in many forms - Christ did not

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

Christ made a reinterpretation of 2 laws (mitzvahs), he put them together.

"Love thy neighbor as ye love thy God." Learned that from a Catholic Priest in a sermon..

Christ did not carry a sword, many of his followers did...

"If thou must carry a sword; carry two." This does not advocate violence, in the QBL, the MIND is referred to as a sword.

The rest, TRUE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They isolated them from their surrounding culture and peer groups - Christ did not.

They RE-interpreted scritpure - Christ did not

They seperated themselves from the local authority and did not yeild to them - Christ did not

They split followers from their wives and children by force and intimidation - Christ did not

The set up compounds and secure people cattling processes - Christ did not

They had arms and money - Christ had neither

They were given to chemical addicitons - Christ did not

they abused women and children in many forms - Christ did not

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

Christ made a reinterpretation of 2 laws (mitzvahs), he put them together.

"Love thy neighbor as ye love thy God." Learned that from a Catholic Priest in a sermon..

Christ did not carry a sword, many of his followers did...

"If thou must carry a sword; carry two." This does not advocate violence, in the QBL, the MIND is referred to as a sword.

The rest, TRUE.

can you give me some on the reinterpretation of scripture...some more details?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can you give me some on the reinterpretation of scripture...some more details?

I can, but not verbatim...but some details...

It is a combination of 2 bits of Jewish Law from TORA, taken from, Deuteronomy, and/or Leviticus,

said by Jesus, to the Pharasis* or Saddocies*, one of the Priestly Rabbi, and they were shocked....

It's in N.T., a Gospel I think... it has been a while....

*I don't even remember the difference between the two classes of Temple Rabbi...OMG I better hit the books AGAIN...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    38.9k
    Total Topics
    820.3k
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 98 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.