Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 61 of 427 (540426)
12-25-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Iblis
12-24-2009 11:02 PM


Re: The real Suffering Servant
It isn't even so much allegory as light euphemism. The archetypal Man and Woman have just had their first experience with the sexual act, the "forbidden fruit" which is the source of adult rights and responsibilities (the knowledge of good and evil.) The first consequence is immediate physical soreness. The "serpent" (male sexual organ), which had stood surprisingly upright, now droops down and its head is bruised from the breaking of the hymen, which also results in the female sexual organ ("heel") being wounded, ie shedding blood.
This is confirmed by the consequences which follow. The Woman will bear a child, which is a painful and unpleasant process. Bringing children into the world and the responsibility that entails affects not only the mother but also the Man, who must work hard for the rest of his life to care for his offspring.
allllrighty then, about the only thing i agree with here is that satan is a straight up, you know what. I already feel dirty responding to this one.
Ill go ahead and trust inspiration verses this insightful interpretation by a clear skeptic. Why should I accept this as the interpretation, since it is no where explicated in any other passages in scripture?
Also, when say, a person like Autunman provides another interpretation that seems to fit, whos will I choose? So you dont know that it does not refer to the Messiah and one could certainly say that it appears as such. Then we have the confirmation of inspiration through the NT writers. if you accept this as the interpretation of the writer, in the OT, and you seem to think this is the correct one, what is your system you are employing to come to this conclusion.
also, while i dont agree with this interpretation and it very may well be the correct one, if the story is only a poetic expression, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with it being a reference to the future Messiah and his actions.
It seems that only inspiration in the form of the NT would be able to assist us in knowing this, correct? for now I will stick with divine guidance, unless you can demonstrate why i should limit it to your very interesting interpretation.
This even though Matthew and Hebrews go to any lengths available to twist every Old Testament prophecy they can around to serve this purpose.
It appeared in your post that you were getting ready to demonstrate that these prophecies could not have dual meanings, but you quickly switched gears, or lost steam. Again, since the writers of the NT claim inspiration and were in a much better position , especially Paul to demonstrate the invalidity of these prohecies as refering to Christ, Ill go with thier claims of inspiration verses your loose interpretations, that for all intents and purposes proceed from a skeptical point of view as to reliability of even the passage you are interpreting.
Genesis 3:15 is not referenced as referring to the Messiah at any point in the New Testament. This even though Matthew and Hebrews go to any lengths available to twist every Old Testament prophecy they can around to serve this purpose. It simply won't work even for them,
Since most if not all of the Old Testament writers and characters considered the story in Gen as literal, your statement is not valid. The refernce to the serpent in the garden in other passages in scripture would invalidate your conclusion about it not NECESSARILY refering to Christ. If satan was real and he was in the form of a serpent, then the passage may very well and most likely does refer to Christ
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 11:02 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Iblis, posted 12-25-2009 9:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 427 (540430)
12-25-2009 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2009 7:35 PM


quote:
No Im NOT saying anything, the gospel writers made these claims not myself. you can see the difference between me saying something and the gospel writers saying something correct, if not Ill slow down and say it in a much simpler way if thats possible.
You can find a few cases where Matthew does something of the sort, but in general most of these "prophecies" are not explicitly identified by the Gosple writers. And none of them explicitly endorse the method. So it IS you saying it, not the Gospel writers.
(Not that an endorsement by the Gospel writers would make the practice any less dishonest)
quote:
By me and others I expect you dont mean the gospel writers correct? besides this you can challenge anything you wish. You do realize that I and brian have been debating this issue and we have been responding to eachohters arguments correct? That would constitute him challenging my points of view.
just a quick question here did you have anything of real value to add here or were just being silly. I sure hope it was deliberate sillness. If not, uh oh.
From what rational perspective does this seem not to work. I assume your a bible scholar like Brian correct?
I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, merely an interested layman.
However I am making the rational and sensible point that your "correct" understanding of prophecy is nothing more than a rationalisation produced by strong bias.
It would be more to the point to ask whether you have anything rational to contribute. Most of your posts in this thread seem to consist of an angry and arrogant attack on anyone who dares to disagree with your dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 7:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 9:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 63 of 427 (540439)
12-25-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
12-25-2009 3:39 AM


It would be more to the point to ask whether you have anything rational to contribute. Most of your posts in this thread seem to consist of an angry and arrogant attack on anyone who dares to disagree with your dogma.
Statements like this are designed to create prejudice and ignore the fact that I have responded and presented soild evidence to the contrary of brians arguments. Namley that Christ was a failure because he did not fulfill prophecies attributed to him. He simply doesnt understand Gods methods, Gods intentions and gods purposes through the prophets of Old. If you dont believe me listen to Peter
1Peter 1
"6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen[a] you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faiththe salvation of your souls.
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us[b] they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaventhings which angels desire to look into."
Pay close attention to verse 12 that in all most no uncertain terms implies a dual nature of prophecy. As I stated to you before Paul Im not making things up and I do have some knowledge of these matters after a quite a few years of study
You can find a few cases where Matthew does something of the sort, but in general most of these "prophecies" are not explicitly identified by the Gosple writers. And none of them explicitly endorse the method. So it IS you saying it, not the Gospel writers.
(Not that an endorsement by the Gospel writers would make the practice any less dishonest)
Do you still believe that none of the NT writers endorse the method. Look at the things Peter is asserting. They wrote by the Holy Spirit a dual program, they were still in control yet guided by the Holy Spirit. it clearly had some meaning to them, yet had an expanded meaning about Christ. The writer concerning the suffering servant would have certainly saw a meaning in and for Israel, yet God as he always did HAD A LARGER EXPANDED MEANING IN THE PROPHECIES, regarless of whether the writer understood its full implications. Imagine that, God pulling off such a neat program.
but all of this is symbiotic in nature anyway. When you speak of Israel as the suffering servant, you are speaking about Christ and God. Anyone reading or studying the scriptures should be able to deduce that is all about God, regardless of who the writer is, of what he speaking or whatever century he is speaking. when you view the scriptures and specfically the prophecies from this perspective, it all makes perfect sense.
I didnt say anything Peter did
If you or brian choose not to believe this that is your choice
However I am making the rational and sensible point that your "correct" understanding of prophecy is nothing more than a rationalisation produced by strong bias.
really, well i would suggest that instead of reasserting your original contention in other words, simply demonstrate it.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 3:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 11:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 427 (540441)
12-25-2009 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2009 10:47 PM


Re: Diminishing Jesus's Kingdom
EMA writes:
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
Hi EMA. Way to go, EMA, supporting Brian's notion that Jesus the Christ is a failure. LOL. If this is the best and all there is, he is indeed a failure.
Are you JW (Jehovah Witness}, an alleged witness of Jehovah, or maybe SDA (7th Day Adventist), or what?
EMA writes:
buz, i wanted it to be known that while you and I may have some different points of view about gods plans for Israel and the end times, I do not NOT consider you a brother in christ. i think people that are in christ can have different views on such things
That's interesting, that you think one's views about prophecy is the determinate factor on one's salvation and that one's little group has the corner on Jesus's kingdom. If your relatively small group is all there is to the kingdom, then Jesus is indeed a failure.
Sincerely, B u z s a w
Edited by Buzsaw, : Update Message Title

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 10:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 10:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 65 of 427 (540446)
12-25-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
12-25-2009 10:00 AM


Re: Diminishing Jesus's Kingdom
Hi EMA. Way to go, EMA, supporting Brian's notion that Jesus the Christ is a failure. LOL. If this is the best and all there is, he is indeed a failure.
Are you JW (Jehovah Witness}, an alleged witness of Jehovah, or maybe SDA (7th Day Adventist), or what?
Obviously you misunderstood the nature of my apology. I was saying just the opposite of what you are charging me with. I am saying that I DO NOT believe that what one believes about END TIMES, is a matter of fellowship. i consider you a brother regardless of what you believe about this subject and certainly do believe Brian is wrong about how much you may be wrong about here or there
Are you JW (Jehovah Witness}, an alleged witness of Jehovah, or maybe SDA (7th Day Adventist), or what?
If it matters to you I am a member of the Chruch of Christ and as rule we do not accept the doctrine of premillinillism. yet while most of my brothers make this a matter of fellowship I DO NOT.
while you and i may disagree on some of the points of these doctrines, I hardly see why Jesus saving all people from there sins constitues him as a FAILURE. he said, "If I am lifted up I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO MYSELF." That doesnt sound like a failure to me.
That's interesting, that you think one's views about prophecy is the determinate factor on one's salvation and that one's little group has the corner on Jesus's kingdom. If your relatively small group is all there is to the kingdom, then Jesus is indeed a failure.
Actually I was saying just the opposite of what you are charging. there is no small group to Christs Kingdom, its all those that Believe in him.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear enought he first time, I was actually supporting you
I was in no way supporting Brians contentions that christ was a failure
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2009 10:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 427 (540453)
12-25-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
12-25-2009 9:38 AM


quote:
Statements like this are designed to create prejudice and ignore the fact that I have responded and presented soild evidence to the contrary of brians arguments.
Let us note that I was echoing one of your statements. Thus I can legitimately conclude that you were attempting to create prejudice and ignore the fact that your "evidence" was far from solid.
quote:
He simply doesnt understand Gods methods, Gods intentions and gods purposes through the prophets of Old. If you dont believe me listen to Peter
Of course Bible scholars think it is unlikely that 1 Peter was written by Peter, dating it to a time where he was likely dead. And whoever wrote it, there is no objective reason to suppose that it contains genuine knowledge of God's intentions or goals.
quote:
Pay close attention to verse 12 that in all most no uncertain terms implies a dual nature of prophecy. As I stated to you before Paul Im not making things up and I do have some knowledge of these matters after a quite a few years of study
I don't dispute your knowledge of Christian doctrine. I do dispute any claim to the idea that Christian doctrine must be considered objective truth.
quote:
Do you still believe that none of the NT writers endorse the method.
We were talking about the Gospel writers. 1 Peter is not a Gospel, and the author of 1 Peter is not credited with writing any of the canonical Gospels.
quote:
They wrote by the Holy Spirit a dual program, they were still in control yet guided by the Holy Spirit. it clearly had some meaning to them, yet had an expanded meaning about Christ. The writer concerning the suffering servant would have certainly saw a meaning in and for Israel, yet God as he always did HAD A LARGER EXPANDED MEANING IN THE PROPHECIES, regarless of whether the writer understood its full implications. Imagine that, God pulling off such a neat program.
If you cannot see that this view presupposes the truth of Christian doctrine then we must indeed conclude that you have nothing rational to contribute. An objective analysis simply cannot assume that writings from centuries later were "guided by the Holy Spirt".
quote:
I didnt say anything Peter did
The unidentified author of 1 Peter may have made such statements, however that does not make the method objectively valid nor does it mean that you did not write the posts which appear under your name.
quote:
really, well i would suggest that instead of reasserting your original contention in other words, simply demonstrate it.
Strictly speaking the burden is on you to present evidence in support of your view. The fact is that you have to appeal to after-the-fact reinterpretations of parts of the OT - many of which do not appear to have been written as predictive prophecy at all. Your only justification was to claim that the Gospel writers endorsed it, and when that was challenged to appeal to 1 Peter, while surreptitiously trying to pretend that you had said "NT authors". Even if your initial claim had been correct it would still not have offered valid support for the methodology. Indeed your whole claim that it does is based on assuming the truth of Christian doctrine.
This is quite sufficient to demonstrate that your methodology is based in bias, rather than objective fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 9:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 12:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 67 of 427 (540463)
12-25-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
12-25-2009 11:46 AM


Of course Bible scholars think it is unlikely that 1 Peter was written by Peter, dating it to a time where he was likely dead. And whoever wrote it, there is no objective reason to suppose that it contains genuine knowledge of God's intentions or goals.
Son, dont you even understand the point I am making here? Brian is using sources he claims that are unreliable, ie the Old testament, assigning and ascribing exact interpretations to them, insisting that that must be thier only interpretation, uses and illustrations. now he is not just suggesting his interpretations are the correct ones, he is insisting that without question his conclusions are ezact.
all of this from a source to which he probably denies the same authorship for his authors that you are ascribing to Petet or the writer of peter.
Yet he is certain his sources and conclusions are reliable and mine, as you do should be rejected. This is simply nonsense and a double standard
Of course Bible scholars think it is unlikely that 1 Peter was written by Peter, dating it to a time where he was likely dead. And whoever wrote it, there is no objective reason to suppose that it contains genuine knowledge of God's intentions or goals.
As I told Brian. I can trot out as many scholars in the conservative scene to suggest that this is not the case. its not the point. if it were the point, then any if not all of brians conclusions would fall under the situation. if brian uses the scriptures as his source to suggest an idea, interpretation and conclusion, there is no reason to believe Peter is not the author of the Book ascribed to him.
I don't dispute your knowledge of Christian doctrine. I do dispute any claim to the idea that Christian doctrine must be considered objective truth.
Ill be happy to discuss this with you at somother point. It is however NOT the point now.
If you cannot see that this view presupposes the truth of Christian doctrine then we must indeed conclude that you have nothing rational to contribute. An objective analysis simply cannot assume that writings from centuries later were "guided by the Holy Spirt".
youve got to be kidding right? Both of use are presuppsing several things in our arguments If you dont believe Jesus was the Messiah, as brian does, then you will assume he was a failure. brian is quoting passages from the Old Testament for which he believes the history to be faulty in the first place. he is looking at what the author said and at the same time doesnt even believe the history around it.
We are using the scriptures in the BIBLE STUDY thread to determine whether or not the writers were in harmony with eachother and ofcourse i am assuming AT PRESENT, things like authorship
If peter is not the author, and the writers of the Old Testament cannot be trusted then there is no need to assume Brians conclusions are correct either about thier intention. If however inspiration is involved one is justified in believing the writers of the Old Testament were speaking about Christ through inspiration of the holy Spirit. this is a bible study thread.
You can see the relevence of the point that if Brian is using the scriptures in the Old Testament as a source for denying the Messiaship, yet doesnt believe thier accuracy or reliablity, then whether Peter is the author is equally irrelevant at this point, correct?
there are basically two ways to approach this topic. You can suggest that neither the prophets or Peter are reliable and say, therefore jesus was a failure. secondly, however, once you make the claim that Jesus did not fulfill any of these prophecies, your are now assuming atleast the possibility that he was real and the prophets possibly spoke about him. iassumed this was the path we were on, given the fact that many people have offered thier explanations as to the interpretations of certain passages and prohecies
assuming jesus was a failure, assumes atleast the possibilty of his existence. if you dont even believe he existed, whether he was a failure is pretty silly. Assuming his existence as brian has by suggesting he was a failure, implies that he might have fulfilled prophecy, depending on what can be determined by scripture, Old and New.
again I am not suggesting that brians conclusions and interpretations are wrong, I am only suggesting that the same source from which he quotes and looks for answers includes, implies and directly implies inspiration and guidance from God, especially in the Old testament.
that being the case it easy to see how an eternal God would and could have a dual meaning for a plan that was formed before the foundation of the world. In other words there is no reason to believe any of the Old testament writers though otherwise.
there is therfore no reason to believe Christ was a failure atleast from a prophecy standpoint.
Dont mean to be rude but you are taking it in a direction that is not now relevant. I consider I have now responded to most if not all of your objections, so I will try and stay with the Biblical topic at present
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 11:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 3:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 68 of 427 (540494)
12-25-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
12-25-2009 12:45 PM


In order to avoid confusion I will state now that when I refer to "genuine Messianic prophecies" I mean only those texts which are clearly intended as predictions of the Messiah. I neither assume that they are from God (or any source other than the imagination of the author) or that they will be fulfilled. (In fact I currently believe that they are not from God and will never be fulfilled. Only evidence will change my mind).
quote:
Son, dont you even understand the point I am making here? Brian is using sources he claims that are unreliable, ie the Old testament, assigning and ascribing exact interpretations to them, insisting that that must be thier only interpretation, uses and illustrations. now he is not just suggesting his interpretations are the correct ones, he is insisting that without question his conclusions are ezact.
I hardly think that Brian believes that the OT is so corrupt that it cannot even tell us what it says. Its reliability as history, and the questions over authorship and date are not that relevant to that question. Of course, if you want to argue that the OT text is in a far worse state than even Bible scholars believe then please make your case.
I also see that Brian - unlike you is appealing to the actual text, to support his interpretations. So he, at least, is referring to valid evidence.
quote:
Yet he is certain his sources and conclusions are reliable and mine, as you do should be rejected. This is simply nonsense and a double standard
No, an obvious double standard is when you attack me for making a statement much like one that you made previously - and attempt to use that to dismiss the points I am making.
Brian's evidence is simply better than yours and judged by a fair standard Brian has the better case. Indeed your whole argument can be seen as supporting Brian's view. If Jesus had fulfilled the clear and definite messianic prophecies, why are those ignored in favour of reinterpreting other passages in the OT as prophecy ?
quote:
As I told Brian. I can trot out as many scholars in the conservative scene to suggest that this is not the case. its not the point. if it were the point, then any if not all of brians conclusions would fall under the situation. if brian uses the scriptures as his source to suggest an idea, interpretation and conclusion, there is no reason to believe Peter is not the author of the Book ascribed to him.
So you present a dichotomy. Either the Bible is entirely reliable or so corrupt that it can tell us nothing. Of course that is a false dichotomy. You confuse reliability of transmission with accuracy and truthfulness. Brian's case depends on the first, yours depends on the second.
quote:
Ill be happy to discuss this with you at somother point. It is however NOT the point now.
I am content to set it aside so long as it is not a part of your case. Let us stick with objective and rational readings to identify the meaning without concerning ourselves with other questions of truth.
quote:
youve got to be kidding right? Both of use are presuppsing several things in our arguments If you dont believe Jesus was the Messiah, as brian does, then you will assume he was a failure. brian is quoting passages from the Old Testament for which he believes the history to be faulty in the first place. he is looking at what the author said and at the same time doesnt even believe the history around it.
Of course your presentation misses a point or two. If Jesus had fulfilled the unquestioned Messianic prophecies, Brian would have no case even if he still rejected the idea of Jesus as Messiah (and it is far from certain that he would do in such a situation). Moreover it is certainly possible to believe that the text has been reliably transmitted (or mostly so) without beleiving that it is true. After all the definitive edition of any work of fiction is based on securing maximum fidelity to the author's intent without any concern as to its truth.
quote:
We are using the scriptures in the BIBLE STUDY thread to determine whether or not the writers were in harmony with eachother and ofcourse i am assuming AT PRESENT, things like authorship
If you are claiming that "of course" you must rely on questionable assumptions to make your case you are conceding that Brian has the stronger position. If you are not, then there is no "of course" about it. You do not have to make such assumptions any more than Brian does.
quote:
You can see the relevence of the point that if Brian is using the scriptures in the Old Testament as a source for denying the Messiaship, yet doesnt believe thier accuracy or reliablity, then whether Peter is the author is equally irrelevant at this point, correct?
It is obviously incorrect for the reasons I have already given.
quote:
there are basically two ways to approach this topic. You can suggest that neither the prophets or Peter are reliable and say, therefore jesus was a failure. secondly, however, once you make the claim that Jesus did not fulfill any of these prophecies, your are now assuming atleast the possibility that he was real and the prophets possibly spoke about him. iassumed this was the path we were on, given the fact that many people have offered thier explanations as to the interpretations of certain passages and prohecies
Or there is a far simpler way. We can look at the texts to identify pprophecies and what they say, and we can look at the Gospels to see what Jesus allegedly did. Or indeed we can look at the world and see if it matches up with what the situation should be after the coming of the Messiah. If we do not find an extremely good match then at the very least you must concede that Jesus has not succeeded yet. Appealing to questionable reinterpretations of other OT texts - based on your religious doctrines - can hardly be considered objective evidence to counter Brian's points/
quote:
again I am not suggesting that brians conclusions and interpretations are wrong, I am only suggesting that the same source from which he quotes and looks for answers includes, implies and directly implies inspiration and guidance from God, especially in the Old testament.
I am afraid that you are completely and utterly wrong here. I cannot speak for Brian but I would regard the genuine Messianic prophecies as defining what the Messiah is. Since that requires no inspiration from God your suggestion is simply false.
quote:
there is therfore no reason to believe Christ was a failure atleast from a prophecy standpoint.
Dont mean to be rude but you are taking it in a direction that is not now relevant. I consider I have now responded to most if not all of your objections, so I will try and stay with the Biblical topic at present
Unfortunately since we know that Jesus did not succeed in fulfilling the genuine Messianic prophecies there are good reasons to consider him a failure. The standard Christian doctrine is that the Second Coming will change that, however an objective rational view can hardly take that for granted.
I also disagree that I have taken things in a direction that is not relevant. Since I was simply - and directly - answering some of your major points the direction was yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 12:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2009 10:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 69 of 427 (540516)
12-25-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
12-25-2009 12:29 AM


"hidden" in plain sight
Ill go ahead and trust inspiration verses this insightful interpretation by a clear skeptic.
Whose inspiration, Origen's? While I certainly think the man was inspired in places, I am talking about a quality of poetry and creative writing; whereas you are referring to a perverse doctrine that characterizes God as taking the prophets and the apostles and sticking his hand up their ass and using them as sock-puppets.
In any case, Origen is following Philo's lead in interpreting the Hebrew scriptures as allegorical in every case, only shifting the target to be shored up from Alexandrian gnostic Judaism to his own commentaries on the New Testament. These commentaries are the source of numerous attempted deletions to the Gospels and Epistles. I don't think you approve of these cuts and chops, certainly not all of them; so why would you approve of the doctrines created to support them?
Answer: you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?
Why should I accept this as the interpretation, since it is no where explicated in any other passages in scripture?
Nonsense! Here
Proverbs 30:19 writes:
The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.
and here
Song of Solomon 4:16 writes:
Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, [that] the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
and here
Song of Solomon 5:7 writes:
The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
and here.
Isaiah 14:29 writes:
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit [shall be] a fiery flying serpent.
Had enough? Let's move on then.
if the story is only a poetic expression, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with it being a reference to the future Messiah and his actions.
Why shouldn't I understand "love they neighbor as thyself" as meaning to always spank the little children before and after raping them? Why couldn't we interpret the torture and persecution of Jews and pagans by the medieval Catholic church as being "spiritual" tolerance? Why wouldn't you accept the revelation that everything is clean in Acts 10:9-16 as indicating that sodomy and bestiality are now okay?
Answer: Words have meaning. They can't be muddled up and interchanged at will the way your pseudo-theology treats them. "Church" (called out) is not the same as "kingdom" (marked in). "Redemption" (buying back) is not the same as "salvation" (preserving from loss). "Son of man" (mortal) is not the same as "son of God" (angel). And "seed" (ejaculate) is not the same as "Jesus" (savior).
Since most if not all of the Old Testament writers and characters considered the story in Gen as literal, your statement is not valid. The refernce to the serpent in the garden in other passages in scripture would invalidate your conclusion about it not NECESSARILY refering to Christ. If satan was real and he was in the form of a serpent, then the passage may very well and most likely does refer to Christ
The story of Eve and the Garden is not even mentioned anywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures, much less asserted to be literal. The only place even Adam is ever referred to again is in a genealogy of David at First Chronicles 1:1, written up by the same team that compiled the late Babylonian commentary in Genesis 1:1-2:3 on the Creation Hymn (represented in its original form in Psalms 103 & 148 and referenced in numerous other places) in together with the deliciously-dirty series of shaggy dog stories that begin at Genesis 2:3 and continue on and off every few chapters through the Law and the Former Prophets (Deuteronomic History.)
The fact that you profess those scriptures to be holy, while at the same time getting totally grossed out by any attempt to translate the puns which are their purpose in such a way as to make their meaning understood, is a naked, throbbing sign of the bizarre conditioning you have been put through to make you a good slave.
As for the angel you are slandering, he is only portrayed in one book of the Old Testament, the framing story of Job. There, he is depicted as obeying the commands of his God and doing the job for which he was created. In most occurrences of the word in the Hebrew scriptures, as in Numbers 22:22, the "adversary" being referred to represents Yahweh himself (he is who he is.) And you will have to admit that the New Testament verses that haven't been totally subverted in your mind by your masters paint much the same picture.
Matthew 5:25 writes:
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Let me just ask you this: if "serpent" means that angel you mistakenly think you are not required to forgive, then what is this verse about?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Answer: he's leveraging the qabalistic teaching that "serpent" (nachash) and messiah ("annointed") represent the same total in Hebrew arithmetic, 358, and are therefore considered in some sense to be equivalent. This is part of the not-very-secret doctrine that God is playing both ends against the middle in a cosmic game of Tarocci solitaire:
Isaiah 45:7 writes:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
The authors of the gospels and epistles do this sort of thing all the time. The New Testament has almost as many instances of gematria as the Old does off-color puns. Why do you not know about any of this stuff?
Answer: the people whose teachings you are entrusting the fate of your immortal soul to have no understanding whatsoever of the culture they claim to be "experts" on! They are just links in a long chain of charismatic liars, who know nothing except how to manipulate ideas in a manner suited to cause you to have uncontrollable feelings that you mistake for true spiritual experiences, and thereby recruit you into carrying on the process into the next generation.
Matthew 15:14 writes:
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
And if there is some curiosity in your mind, as to what the word "ditch" might mean here, in some prophetic sense, have a clue
Proverbs 23:27 writes:
For a whore [is] a deep ditch; and a strange woman [is] a narrow pit.
You have a picture of God that portrays him as wanting things, and not getting them. If such a picture were even remotely true, he really would be a failure!
Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.
-- JMFC
Edited by Iblis, : "humor" withdrawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-25-2009 12:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2009 11:37 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 70 of 427 (540564)
12-26-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
12-25-2009 3:09 PM


Unfortunately since we know that Jesus did not succeed in fulfilling the genuine Messianic prophecies there are good reasons to consider him a failure. The standard Christian doctrine is that the Second Coming will change that, however an objective rational view can hardly take that for granted.
I also disagree that I have taken things in a direction that is not relevant. Since I was simply - and directly - answering some of your major points the direction was yours.
This becoming a bit tedious
instead of wasting my time responding to your entire post, to which i have already several times now, i will simplfy it to bring it back into perspective and hopefully be able to engage in a discussion with someone that actually understands Bible doctrine. As I said before I dont want to be rude but it appears you understand very little about bible doctrine and you fail to realze this is a Bible Study thread
two basic premises have been offered in my and brians discussion, one by him, that Jesus is a failure because he did not fulfill prophecy. he and yourself have offered no objective evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
I stated that he does not understand the nature and purpose of prophecy, if he did he would understand that christ (if he was alive, existed and actually participated in the action he is said to have) did actually fulfill these prophcies.
Now, Paulk, pay close attention Son. Brian said in no uncertain terms, that "Jesus saaaaaaaaid he was a king and yet we know that he had no kingdom." Do you understand he is quoting jesus out of the Gospels assuming his existence and that jesus made this statement. based upon this fact, we can assume that for the sake of argument that he would allow the other things Jesus said and attributed to him.
Are you still with me Paul?
yes brian is appealing to the text, and so am I, but he is appealing to a text he does not even believe as reliable, even in the Old Testament in context of both the old and the New to try and deduce whether maybe according to the text, Christ met the requirements of the prophecies.
I then stated that the prophecies are dual in nature because it is and has always been about, through and for God, Christ, Israel, etc, etc, etc. I offered Peter as an example of how this worked. While Peters explanation is valid and applicable for any thinking person that understands these matters, you complained it was not a Gospel writer. I will now offer prophecies that are dual in natur to demonstrate this point.
In Matthew chapter 2, the writer, states "this was done to fulfill the prophecy, out of Egypt have I called my Son". Now, any thinking person can see that this has application to both Israel which is also Gods chosen son and to Christ. the writer of the time and its hearers would have understood it to mean Israel, then, inspiration of the holy Spirit reveals that its truest meaning is about Christ. Christ thus fulfills the prophecy and Brian is incorrect, atleast from a biblical perspective.
Peter and others confirm this dual usage of prophecy by God. As I said, I dont mena to be rude but maybe alittle more study in this connection is required at present to speak seriously from atleast a Biblical perspective.
Some of the prophcies were literal in nature in a dual sense, some were figurative as In Matt 3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his path straight"
This passage could have meant God at any time during Israels history or specifically concering God in the person of Christ specifically, again a dual usage. Only inspiration could have made this known in the form of prophecy
Unfortunately since we know that Jesus did not succeed in fulfilling the genuine Messianic prophecies there are good reasons to consider him a failure. The standard Christian doctrine is that the Second Coming will change that, however an objective rational view can hardly take that for granted.
Unfortunately you know nothing of the sort, and are demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge concerning Gods methods and purposes, specifically in the nature of prophecy.
If the lost of Israel aare being converted to Christ, literally thousands upon thousands through the centuries his plan has succeded and he can hardly be considered a failure, except by those that are ignorant of Gods methods and purposes.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2009 3:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 12-27-2009 5:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 71 of 427 (540566)
12-26-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Blind leading the blind
They also complained about not having a King, and told them they already had a king, Himself and he gave them the desires of thier heart.
Let’s get this straight, when Yahweh told Nathan to inform David that his house would last forever and that the Messiah would come from the bloodline of Solomon, then that’s not really what Yahweh meant?
Why would God tell the Jewish nation to expect a physical kingdom and then give them many prophecies that would allow them to identify the Messiah, and then send a Messiah that is NOTHING at all like the Messiah foretold in the prophecies that Yahweh gave?
It is not only ludicrous, it is appalling that a nation’s scriptures are corrupted by a bunch of chancers whose leader achieved nothing at all, and still appalling that there’s so many people that are blind to the obvious mismatch between what the NT authors wrote and that which was promised in the OT. To keep saying that 1000 years of Jewish understanding of THEIR OWN scriptures was 100% incorrect is very insulting to that nation, especially so when it is glaringly obvious that this new interpretation is an obvious reinterpretation to try and explain away why their leader was a failure.
The Jews had been promised a Messiah who would free them from their enemies and set up his throne in Jerusalem, a great warrior, and when Jesus FAILED to achieve any of this you are seriously saying that the Jewish people are at fault for not understanding their own scriptures?
For centuries the Jewish nation was expecting someone who was 100% different from Jesus because that was what they were told to expect and somehow they are at fault!
Can you find a single OT reference to the Messiah that suggests that he would be king of a spiritual kingdom, and not king of the physical nation of Israel?
Have you ever considered that this whole spiritual kingdom is an excuse for someone who failed to fulfil the messianic expectation of Israel?
its interesting how you use the scriptures as a weapon to support your own point then decry them as unreliable when it suits your purposes. How and where did you find out jesus said he was a King?
I found out in the NT, which is a different collection of book to that of the OT.
The thing that you appear to be unaware of is that we can check the validity of the text when it makes claims that would leave a ‘fingerprint’ on the historical record. When we see that the Messiah would sit on the throne of Israel then we can look at the historical record as a way of verifying this particular criterion.
There are very good records for the time and area that Jesus was living in, we know for a fact that there was no king of Israel during His time, so your thinly veiled claim of antithesis on my part is irrelevant. I am not using the scripture to deny scripture. I am using historical records to show that a claim made in scripture is historically inaccurate. This doesn’t mean that the entire collection of books are inaccurate because each claim has to be scrutinized on its own merits. Now when the OT claims that the Messiah will be crowned king of Israel then there is no need to reject this as it is not implausible that there could be future kings of Israel, this is not a remarkable claim, and this claim may indeed still come true. But, when someone makes a claim that they are a king we can check this out. Now the Messiah is to be king of Israel, Jesus claimed to be a king and he was not king of Israel, thus He was not the king promised in the OT.
Do you remember him saying "my kingdom is NOT of this world, if it were my servants would fight" the word FIGHT implies the nature of a physical kingdom and how it is maintained.
Hey, have your spiritual kingdom with the fairytale messiah, just don’t confuse that with anything that was promised in the Jewish scriptures.
Since inspiration was involved here one is completely justified in assuming that may things didnt always go according to the standards and practices that were established
So yet another incident that has no support in the historical record, but does have a huge amount of evidence against it, yet you will accept the one that suits your faith even although it is the weakest position.
We seem to have this constant supply of unsupported incidents that may be true if this or that was the case. Your Jesus guy seems to rely on this ambiguity quite a lot doesn’t He?
As i stated before brian you are responding to an apologetic in the nature of prophecy and the way prophecy has been used, for which it was never intended. As Peter says the prophets themselves searched diligently as to manner and time and nature of the person in the prophetic utterance. since the prophets were guided by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would stand to reason that the other people may have missed the ultimate message in the nature of spiritual verses physical
But you are claiming that every messianic prophecy in the OT is mistaken!
There is nothing at all in the OT to imply that the messianic kingdom would be spiritual. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it. There is no justification for a spiritual kingdom in the OT. You can have wee Jesus in His fairytale castle but don’t keep corrupting the scriptures of another faith to support it.
here is the sad part, you are making the same mistake and missing the point for which the Messaih and the prophecies concerning him
But I’m not, this is the thing. Since Jesus failed in His messianic mission the apologists went into overdrive to make excuses for Him. I’m afraid it is you and your fellow xians who completely misunderstand the OT and have been suckered into the biggest scam in history.
I cant believe any person that studies the scriptures cannot see that God always desired it to be a spiritual king and kingdom. it was always about god from finish to start.
You keep making these unsupported assertions.
I’ll ask again. Where in the OT does it even imply a spiritual messianic kingdom?
Where does it say this EMA, is it in the NT by any chance?
Brian, you reasons for believing jesus was a failure are misguided do to a lack of understanding of Gods purposes even in the Old testament.
You have yet to demonstrate this EMA.
Have you shown that Jesus is an ancestor of David through Solomon, no you haven’t. Have you shown that the OT concept of the messianic kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, no you haven’t. You haven’t really provided a single decent argument, you are continually relying on reinterpretation of the OT to fit a guy that failed. You obviously have to do this because Jesus was no messiah and you cannot come to terms with the fact that you have wasted your life away on a con.
therefore your contentions about jesus are nonsensical and invalid
They are perfectly valid. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la doesn’t make these facts go away.
Jesus did not fulfil a single messianic prophecy, it is as clear as the nose on your face, you just need to escape from the myth of Christ to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2009 2:56 AM Brian has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 72 of 427 (540569)
12-26-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Iblis
12-25-2009 9:05 PM


Re: "hidden" in plain sight
EAM writes:
if the story is only a poetic expression, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with it being a reference to the future Messiah and his actions.
Iblis writes:
Why shouldn't I understand "love they neighbor as thyself" as meaning to always spank the little children before and after raping them? Why couldn't we interpret the torture and persecution of Jews and pagans by the medieval Catholic church as being "spiritual" tolerance? Why wouldn't you accept the revelation that everything is clean in Acts 10:9-16 as indicating that sodomy and bestiality are now okay?
Answer: Words have meaning. They can't be muddled up and interchanged at will the way your pseudo-theology treats them. "Church" (called out) is not the same as "kingdom" (marked in). "Redemption" (buying back) is not the same as "salvation" (preserving from loss). "Son of man" (mortal) is not the same as "son of God" (angel). And "seed" (ejaculate) is not the same as "Jesus" (savior).
Luckly its not my pseudo-theology, its inspiration through an Apostle of Christ. Ill go ahead and choose them over you and your teachers. as i indicated erlier, even if the interpretation you offer is correct, only inspiration could make it known that such prophcies or stories could have application to the Messiah. You have not demonstrated that it does and cannot have a dual usage and in the cases of Matt 2 and 3, muchless in Gen 3:15.
true, anyone could make something out of anything, but only inspiration can explain its meanings and purposes. Ill take the Apostles of Christ, you take whom ever you choose
NOTE WELL -- Just because I am replying to you in this message, does not mean you can suck up to me. I reiterate: do not try to hump my leg. Saying my name repetitively won't accomplish anything except calling it down on you.
"Note Well" Whoooo I am really afraid
This is funny, is this an idle threat? what exacally is the IT, I am calling down on myself. come on now you made the threat, uless I am misunderstanding you, what specifically will happen to me?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Iblis, posted 12-25-2009 9:05 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AdminPD, posted 12-26-2009 3:10 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Barabbas126
Junior Member (Idle past 5205 days)
Posts: 1
From: Newport, R.I., USA
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 73 of 427 (540570)
12-26-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


"Jesus"/Failure
Whoa! Stumbling upon this Forum Site, I have discovered a 'hotbed' of (well-intentioned) confusion... as for myself, having studied this particular issue for the better part of fifty (50) years, I respectfully offer my conclusions. I can only hope that it serves to edify, if not enlighten.
First, let me say that 'Scholars', for the most part, fail utterly to 'know', much less understand, "Jesus" and all that may be related to 'Him'; the same may be applicable to the laity. Scholars can only read what is available, -totally ignoring Oral tradition (of things Not written), -not to mention the 'silent language' (communications not spoken); the laity simply lacks critical thinking and discernment of facts.
"Jesus" did not fail... we have.
Not wishing to 'throw the baby out with the bath-water', I contend that there is a germ of truth contained in even the most outrageous of lies. Most, if not all, that has been written about "Jesus" is, in my opinion, an outrageous lie. This is not to say that "Jesus" (Himself) was a lier or a fraud... only that which have been written about Him are intentional lies and is a very clever and cunningly fraudulent documentation.
How might we determine truth from falsehood?
First of all, we are compelled to know the difference..., -this is not a simple tasks..., -neither is it merely a matter of 'accepting' or 'rejecting' anything I (or anyone else) offer here. Both the truth and falsehoods are writ in one's heart. 'Know Thyself' is the first order of business (equally, not a simple, or even a pleasant, task), nevertheless, a task that Must be undergone... whether consciously or unconsciously... sooner or later (this might require 'life-times' to accomplish... but, I digress).
Emmanuel Kant once observed: "It is not the falsehoods that matter, -rather, it is the intentions behind them that is important."
Few seem to know or grasp or realize that Saul of Tarsus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul (an his cohorts: Mark and Luke) are the actual creators and founders of 'Christianity'. This is crucial to know and understand, -without knowing or accepting this fundamental fact or truth... we (may) continue to wallow in an abyss of unending 'controversy'... without resolution of any kind whatsoever.
But I am getting ahead of myself...
What brought me onto the path of learning... about "Jesus" was both not about "Jesus" and, was about "Jesus" as the same time... (sounds confusing, huh?).
My original inquiry was about 'Barabbas', -as a child, I was simply curious as to this: "notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist", -that nobody seemed to know anything about... not a single word has even been written about this "notorious..." man. Years later, this became especially disconcerting, -particularly, as it concerned Josephus.
It was quite 'shocking' for me to learn, to say the very least, that 'Barabbas' was named "Jesus", -written in the original Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17), -but that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin translation (around 390 c. e.) and most of the subsequent translations thereafter... leaving us with only "Barabbas" instead!!! Even more so, to learn, that 'Barabbas' is not a proper or surname per se', -rather it is what He was called. It is actually an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in 'the Father of us all' or, 'God', is you will).
What does one do with That information???
Needless to say, I was either at a dead-end or at a crossroads... but, where might I go from here? As a born, raised and educated a Roman Catholic, I now suffered from 'disappointment' in my 'Church Fathers' and teachers... (did they think or hope that I would never learn the actual truth re. "Jesus Barabbas"?). My 'disappointment' eventually turned to resentment and anger... for being made into a fool.
Fortunately, my love of 'God' prevailed... (more on this later).
All I could do was examine (for the first time) the origin of the (Jewish) 'messiah'... and wonder why 'he' became "Christ". (Yes, of course, I know that "Christ" (actually, "Kristos") is the Greek translation of the Hebrew 'messiah', -but, is it, really? (There is no such etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or customs... there is not such person or appellation that is comparable between the two languages.
No Jew, during the supposed life-time of "Jesus", ever knew or saw or even heard of "Christ"..., -even if they did, "Kristos" is not the same thing as the Jewish 'messiah'.
"Christ" is Saul/Paul's invention or creation (immaculately conceived from out of his schizophrenic epiphany, -while on the road to Damascus in pursuit of "persecuting 'messianists' followers.)
It is not until we examine the life and ancestry Saul of Tarsus that we may truly learn about the 'supposed' "[Jesus] Christ"... and why 'he' ("Jesus Christ") came into 'literal' being... and, why Saul/Paul found it necessary to obliterate the actual name and mission of the Jewish 'messiah'.
Briefly, Saul (of Tarsus) is the namesake and descendant of the first 'anointed' (messiah) king of the Jews.
King Saul eventually was rebuked by 'the Lord' (for failing to anathematize Agag), -nevertheless, he retained his military standing against the Philistines. He "fell upon his own sword" (ostensibly in order to avoid being captured by the Philistines in battle. This cowardly and 'sinful' act brought everlasting shame and dishonor to his heirs and fellow tribal members.
The 'anointment' (messiah-ship) of David replaced king Saul.
King David was succeeded by the 'anointment' of his (David's) son, Solomon.
King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam... but, the prophet Shemaiah refused to 'anoint' Rehoboam, -ten (10) tribes revolted from Rehoboam and the heretofore 'theocracy' (or 'government' run by priests). Rehoboam reign was therefore marginalized into the background.
A parallel 'secular' government was established, headed by Jeroboam.
This schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of the Roman installed and supported Herodian ('secular') government... and the rise of Judas the Galilean, -a 'descendant of David and the proclaimed Jewish 'messiah'... come to restore the ancient 'theocracy' of his forefathers.
Judas the Galilean was killed in the insurrection... but the insurrection did not stop with his death... another 'descendant of David' rose up... and another... and another... there was no end to their insistence upon attempts to overthrow the 'secular' government... until, at last, all the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, the temple at Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the 'secular' government was utterly destroyed (in 70 c. e.).
It was Saul of Tarsus who, behind the scenes, plotted the capture and arrest of one of Judas the Galilean's sons (Judas bar Judas?) in the (pleasure) 'Garden of Gethsemane', under salacious circumstances (see Mark 14:50-52).
It was for "envy" (of Saul) that the (unnamed) 'descendant of David and the Jewish messiah' was "crucified".
Regarding the "crucified one's" name... ostensibly being "Jesus", -with the Greek appellation: Christ"... it is a clever and cunning confluence... of "Jesus [Barabbas]" (the 'Son of God') and the actual author of the 'Sermon on the Mount', together with that of the replacement of "Judas" and the 'switched' roles i.e. -the actual "notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist".
But it is not enough that I stop here...
Previously, I admitted that I was "angry" (for having been made into a fool and that I was 'deceived' accordingly by the 'Church' and its teachers... That 'anger' prevented me for learning the 'truth' (of Love... as given by "Jesus [Barabbas]") during His life-time. What was and is required to get past 'anger' is, in a word, 'forgiveness'.
But, where or how might I 'forgive' those who have 'wronged' me? Who would or could 'forgive' me my 'anger'?
This is the 'lesson' that the 'Church' is and has been keeping a secret, lo these many centuries...
One Who has attained full-blown 'enlightenment' must first receive a 'spark of Light' (and divine Love, -they are the same), so to speak. It is no less true in Jesus [Barabbas'] case. He received that 'spark' from John the Baptist (along with untold numbers of others). Jesus [Barabbas] did likewise as John... and the same has continued on (as since the days of Adam and Eve) to this very day. There has never been a single moment when this has not been the case. There has never been a single moment when 'He', in one human body... and then another, has not been 'present' or, amongst us.
It is our 'pride' and our 'anger' that keeps Him at bay.
I was fortunate (blessed) to have been 'forgiven' and thus 'Loved' and suffered the joy of having the privilege to 'sit at His holy feet and imbibed the sweet elixir of His 'Holy Word'.
Argue all you want... for what I 'know' does not come from (corruptible) 'Books'... it comes privately, personally, directly from His (living) heart and mouth to my ears (eyes) and heart.
Peace, Shalom, Naamaste'.
Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 12:08 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Iblis, posted 12-26-2009 1:17 PM Barabbas126 has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 74 of 427 (540574)
12-26-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Barabbas126
12-26-2009 12:26 PM


Re: "Jesus"/Failure
Very good! I rather thought I might meet One in this thread.
Now, perhaps more for the sake of our audience than yourself, I must warn you not to re-imprint. A model is only as good as the situation it is used to master. Certainly when you find gods, choose those that make you burn inside. But never let them weight you down, always rise to them. Barabbas and Paul are no more "real" than Christ and Pilate, nor you nor I. The only thing real in this question is, as you have signed, that in me to that in you.
Having said that, I am interested in your views of the first century. You seem to be familiar with the son of Sapphias and perhaps the son of Ananus as well, but do you know much about bar Gamaliel? His father was one of the foremost students of Hillel and allegedly Paul's teacher as well. If anyone taught the oral law to the masses in dramatizations in the way portrayed in the Gospels, it was him; he is the youngest person recorded to have made rabboni (judge not requiring consensus, full member) in the Great Sanhedrin before its dissolution, this would have taken place in the time of Pilate.
He went on to become high priest in 63 AD. He is believed to have been the "Jesus" (Yehoshua) recorded to have led the party of venerable sages who joined Eleazar at Masada at the final hour in 73 AD to receive communion with him.
John 11:14-16 writes:
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
Does this mean we should drink the kool-aid? Far from it, we have things to do. But in due time (I assume you are vowed) then certainly, we "must be born again."
Peace!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Barabbas126, posted 12-26-2009 12:26 PM Barabbas126 has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 75 of 427 (540583)
12-26-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dawn Bertot
12-26-2009 11:37 AM


Position, Not Person
EMA and Iblis,
Please argue the position and not the person.
The humor attempts aren't working.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-26-2009 11:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024