Sodaiho Sodaiho

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

▼

Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

staging a messiahship

from JoeUser Forums

With palms together,

 

There is an interesting article in the N Y Times today about a stone tablet found amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Apparently it suggests that the notion of a suffering messiah who would rise in three days was a common belief in the century prior to the Christian Jesus.

 

The article suggests:

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

 

Hmmm. The death and resurrection myth prior to Jesus' birth?  It would seem this adds to the notion advance some decades ago by a Jewish scholar suggesting this whole Jesus script was a scheme to get Jesus recognized as the Messiah, that Jesus was aware of the things that needd to happen before they happened in order to meet the criteria.

 

And later:

 

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

 

Strange.

Link

Be well

 

 

 

 

religion
924,170 views 969 replies
Reply #601 from JoeUser Forums Top

That the Jews were a nation is an undisputed historic fact.
End of quote


_Are_ a nation. They never died out, although the world tried hard to make it happen.

Not all Children of Israel are Jews, but almost all are, hence the words are used interchangeably. There are about a thousand Samaritans who are (presumably) Children of Israel (and Israeli citizens) but they are not Jews (and they do not follow the same Bible as Jews and Christians do).

It gets a bit complicated with Jacob and his wives and twelve sons. Perhaps KFC can go into some detail about that family. I don't have a knack for remembering such details.

Reply #602 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts: # 527
Muhammadism (and I am talking here about its original form before Arab nationalism and the modern heresies) saw itself as a true religion next to Judaism (as per the constitution of Medina, the first Islamic state, and the Quran grants that Judaism, Christianity, and Sabianism (whatever it is) are also true religions and that their adherents can go to heaven.

In Biblical times (and in Muhammadism 1000 years later) the understanding was not "different religions" but "different laws". Those who believed in the one G-d, Jews, Muhammadists ("Muslims"), Zoroastrians, Yazidis, later Bahais and Druzim etc., BELIEVE in the same beliefs but FOLLOW different laws.
End of quote


Who are you trying to fool? Muslims have not the same beliefs. Never have, probably never will this side of eternity! Islam (Muhammadism) is a religion of intolerance all the way around.

When you take a true survey of the prophet of Arabia and the religion he founded, you'll find that Muhammed and his followers pushed Islam by the sword. To Muslims, Islam was the master and the others were despised inferiors and this really hasn't changed much today.

About the only thing that Islam, through the teachings of the Qur'an, gives Jews and Christians is they acknowledge we are "People of the Book" , that is Dhimmis, and thus differ in status from out and out pagans and idolators. While they allow Jews and Christians to practice their respective religions, they must do so under severe restrictions to the point that it's a farce. And as long as Muslims take the Qur'an at face value, women are at risk. Both KFC and I have commented on some of the reasons how.






SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #603 from JoeUser Forums Top

Who are you trying to fool? Muslims have not the same beliefs. Never have, probably never will this side of eternity! Islam (Muhammadism) is a religion of intolerance all the way around.
End of quote


I spoke of basic beliefs. I said they believe that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (Muhammadism) are true religions.

Islam is not more intolerant now than Christianity was during its heyday. Do you think I care whether the people who expell the Jews call themselves "Christians" or "Muslims"?



When you take a true survey of the prophet of Arabia and the religion he founded, you'll find that Muhammed and his followers pushed Islam by the sword. To Muslims, Islam was the master and the others were despised inferiors and this really hasn't changed much today.
End of quote


Christianity was pushed by sword into eastern Europe and southern America. Islam spread by sword and word-of-mouth. The largest (by population) Muslim country in the world is Indonesia and no Muslim army ever reached it.

During the Crusades Jews and non-Catholic Christians _welcomed_ the (so-called) "intolerant" Muslims because they freed them from "Christian" rule.

Islam is to fundamentalist Muslims what Christianity is to fundamentalist Christians: a reason to excuse intolerance. But none of that has anything to do with true Islam and true Christianity.



About the only thing that Islam, through the teachings of the Qur'an, gives Jews and Christians is they acknowledge we are "People of the Book" , that is Dhimmis, and thus differ in status from out and out pagans and idolators.
End of quote


Which in its worst form is better than what Christianity traditionally had to over for Jews and Muslims.

I'd rather be a member of a people of a book than a Jew in medieval Europe, I can tell you that.



While they allow Jews and Christians to practice their respective religions, they must do so under severe restrictions to the point that it's a farce.
End of quote


Did Christianity during its most powerful time allow Jews and Muslims to practice their respective religions?

Did Christianity not cause the reformation and the creation of hundreds of protestant churches because of its intolerance towards other beliefs?



And as long as Muslims take the Qur'an at face value, women are at risk. Both KFC and I have commented on some of the reasons how.
End of quote


Yes, but have you ever met any Muslims and lived with them?

I have.

I shared a student dorm with Arab Muslims in Israel. They were great guys. We are still friends.

So don't you tell me how "intolerant" Muslims are.

I know the problems with Islamic fundamentalism and its attitude towards science, abortion, freedom of and from religion, and the secular state. That's why I oppose such fundamentalism, regardless of what religion it makes use of.

The Qur'an was written over 1200 years ago, at a time when women had no rights in polytheistic Arab tribes. The Qur'an was the first Arab law that established rights for women. And, incidentally, it did so before the Christian world granted such rights.

Reply #604 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where do you get that G-d sent him animals?

There was indeed no need for Noah to capture these animals. But from that I deduce that the animals were domesticated or under Noah's control.
End of quote


Well if you look at 6:20 you'd read:

"Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind of every creepig thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come to thee to keep them alive."

and later in Chap 7 it says the animals came to him in v9 and 14-15. Noah was already in the ark and the animals came to him.

It doesn't mention "earth", the planet, only "land".
End of quote


Go back to the beginning in 1:1 when it says "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." what does the Hebrew say? Is it the same word as what I've been quoting about the earth in the flood?

I have a Hebrew bible with the English next to it. I could look it up too I suppose. I'm just being lazy.

So there was a region (with a mountain or more likely a hill) named "Ararat", but we have absolutely no hint in the Bible as to its location.
End of quote


as far as I know all the scholars are in agreement that it's somewhere near the Turkey border in the mountain range and it's very difficult to gain permission to go up there and have a look.

The Hebrews were first and foremost "a people".
End of quote


Yep. That's it. They were just a people that God called when he called Abraham first. His promise was that Abraham's descendants would be like the grains of sand in the sea they would be so many.

So that's a promise that has definitely come true.
Reply #605 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts# 527
Christianity was the first of the Abrahamic/Zoroastrian religions that claimed a monopoly on truth;
End of quote


I agree. The Catholic Church alone claims to speak in the name of Divine and Infallible authority in matters of faith and morals.

and the Catholic Church established that "truth" in committees.
End of quote


The Jewish Temple was the only House of God in the Old Covenant, and that operated through God's chosen priests...The Temple and synagogues have been replaced by the Catholic Chruch as the only House of God in the New Covenant that operates through Christ's priesthood, the order of Melchesedech.

Of Christ's numerous disciples, He selected 12 and formed them into a corporate body and revealed to them "the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven." So, the "committees" that you speak of is through the Priests, everyone of them successors of the Apostles, through "the laying on of hands". Eph. 2:20 tells us "The Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles."

If one wants God's way rather than their own, Christ's Church and thus His Truth may be found. Of course, one must pay the price for Truth, but the price is giving up the false for the true. No friend of Christ persists in his love for what he knows or comes to know is false.

The testimony is positive, every reason in sense, history, Scripture, and Tradition influences belief that Christ said He would and He actually did institute a Church. The "keys" of its authority were administered to St.Peter, and its powers were defined, the powers of teaching, sandtifying, and ruling were all promised and conferred.

Christ's terms included a visible Church, a priestly kingdom, a city built on top of a hill that cannot be hid; a lamp giving light to the whole house, a mustard seed which was to grow large enough for all.

That's why Christians were taught not to read other scripture and to believe lies about other scripture, because a truth created by committee is fragile. (If the churches were sure about their truth, they would encourage their followers to read everything else, not actively discourage them or forbid it.)
End of quote


Thank you for your opinion of why the Catholic Church forbade the reading of false, counterfeit materials.

Now let me give you mine. I know the fight the CC to safeguard her children from the loss of their faith through counterfeit Bibles and other reading materials has caused her to be charged with being hostile for over 500 years.


A proper understanding of this is dependent upon an appreciation of the fact that the CC made the Holy Bible and preserved the integrity of its writings in it from its infancy of Christianity because she cherished the Holy Bible as the very Word of God.

The CC is Christocentric, being of and for Christ, and being the Mystical body of Christ. She holds with St.Jerome that "ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Cardinal Newman said through Scripture our mind is energized and developed. So, the Chruch is ever concerned that Catholics should know the truths about Christ that are in the Holy Bible.

Now, in the days when there was no printing presses, paper, or libraries, and other means of enlightenment, and when the percentages of people who could read and write was very low, the Chruch taught the message of the Holy Bible through the priest's sermons, through the artistry on the walls and even through stained glass windows that depeicted the life, death and resurrection of Christ, through Passion and Easter plays, through religious music,etc. In other words, biblical events were very much and still are for that matter, a part of Catholic Church life. As has been pointed out many times over, the most illiterate peasant received profitable Biblical and religious instruction from the Church.

What the CC forbade in the past as she does today is the reading of perverted translations. It's a matter of historic fact that the Chruch hs a standing commission whose prupose is to safeguard the authenticity and integrity of the Holy Scriptures until the end of time. And therefore the CC has defended the Holy Bible against mutilation becasue God's word is her very own a possession of Christ's kingdom on earth to be transmitted to posterity in its full integrity.

Once Protestantism took hold in the 1500s, and later with the invention of the printing press, numerous faulty versions were printed to meet the extingencies of their ever changing doctrines.

So, the Church in her high regard for the moral and religious welfare of her children, protects us by forbidding the reading of any false, perverted, or otherwise counterfeit translations. You might liken this to the state being strenuously opposed to counterfeit money. It robs people of their goods and causes them a loss...whereas counterfeit Bibles and other materials rob people of religious truth and the proper moral guidance and their
faith thus threatening the loss of their eternal happiness.











Reply #606 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts: #518
Who even believes that the Messiah would necessarily be a _man_? Jews don't.
End of quote


First time I ever heard this one! :NOTSURE:

KFC Posts: #519
Well I'm not sure why that would be. Moses and the prophets did.
End of quote


Exactly.

Leauki posts: #526
No, they didn't. The messiah is referred to as "he" simply because Hebrew has only two genders and the masculine gender is used whenever the word is masculine or undetermined.

But Judaism does not believe that the messiah is necessarily male (or a person, for that matter).
End of quote


KFC POSTS:
so when God gave the first indication he was sending a Messiah in Gen 3:15 he was indicating this Messiah COULD BE a woman?


I believe Eve thought (by her reaction) that Cain was just this Savior when she declared that she did indeed produce a man child.

How about the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac? Was that just an unattached story having no bearing on the upcoming Messiah?

How about Moses saying there will be a prophet that is greater than he and you will listen to him?

How about all the Pharisees and Jews of the NT who question both Jesus and John the Baptist asking if they were the Messiah?

How about the cruel prediction of crucifixion in both Isaiah and Psalms of this Messiah? Would they have done that with a woman?

How about Zechariah who said that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey written hundreds of years before? Do you know what that symbolized?

No, it's quite clear the OT prophecies pointed to a man Messiah. Can't help that some believed it would be a woman. In fact Leauki this is the first I've ever heard of this.
End of quote



Great points KFC! As you can see, I'm still responding to comments back on page 22! :LOL: In defense of his statement, has Leauki refuted any of these yet?

Lula posts: #573
Leauki,

This is new to me. Certainly in Hebraic Judasim, they believed the Messias was a man, right? So, when did that change? Where does this come from?
End of quote




Reply #607 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki posts: #533
You forget that Judaism has the Tanakh and the Oral Tora (which was later codified in the Talmud). It doesn't have to be in the Bible to be part of Judaism.
End of quote


KFC POSTS:

I understand but what I'm saying is I don't go by outside sources for truth (opinion is another matter)when it comes to religious side books. They all have them. Every single religion has these books and I don't honor them like I do the Jewish scriptures. .
End of quote


On the matter regarding religious side books, I think the same way as you do KFC. As far as Judaism is concerned we have the OLd Testament and that's good enough for me.



REGARDING LEAUKI'S POST #535
KFC POSTS:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers; HE will crush your head and you will strike HIS heal."

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I am not going to look that up now, but as I said, Hebrew doesn't have a neutral gender and uses the grammatically masculine gender for "male" and "indetermined".

KFC POSTS:
I believe Eve thought (by her reaction) that Cain was just this Savior when she declared that she did indeed produce a man child.

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I don't know what Eve thought or whether she even existed as described.

KFC POSTS:
How about the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac? Was that just an unattached story having no bearing on the upcoming Messiah?

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
Why would it have a bearing on the upcoming Messiah?

KFC POSTS:
How about Moses saying there will be a prophet that is greater than he and you will listen to him?

lEAUKI ANSWERS:
I can find Moses saying that another prophet will come. (Deuteronomy 18:15) But I cannot find a word meaning "great" or "greater" in the sentence. Which statement are you referring to?

V. 15, is Moses saying, "The Lord God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me; Him thou shalt hear." Moses said, "Like unto me;" and since Moses was certainly a great prophet...so would be the Great Prophet to come. Simple deduction. Later, in v. 18, God tells them that He will raise up a prophet like (Moses) and God will put words in His Prophet's mouth. In V. 19, God says that to those who will not hear His Prophet, God will be the revenger. It only stands to reason if God is going to be a revenger to His Prophet, it's got to be a big deal, meaning He's GreaT.


KFC POSTS:
How about all the Pharisees and Jews of the NT who question both Jesus and John the Baptist asking if they were the Messiah?

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I have no idea what they were thinking.

KFC POSTS:
How about the cruel prediction of crucifixion in both Isaiah and Psalms of this Messiah? Would they have done that with a woman?

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I don't know how Roman law worked regarding the death penalty for women rebels and fugitive slaves.

I also don't know where the crucifixion is predicted in Isaiah or the Psalms. (Don't know the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "crucifixion" either.)

KFC POSTS:
How about Zechariah who said that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey written hundreds of years before? Do you know what that symbolized?

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I _believe_ it symbolises that the Messiah could be of seemingle humble origins... Could also mean that he is rich enough to own a donkey. Could be a metaphor for anything, really. Ask a rabbi.

KFC POSTS:
No, it's quite clear the OT prophecies pointed to a man Messiah. Can't help that some believed it would be a woman. In fact Leauki this is the first I've ever heard of this.

LEAUKI ANSWERS:
I do not believe that it will be a woman. I am saying that nothing says that it will be, specifically, a man. A woman can be a great king (and the masculine form of the word would be used in Hebrew) and there is no requirement that would require it to be a man.
End of quote


LEAUKI,

I don't know if you realized it or not, however KFC's questions defend her point. You dance around them telling her to ask a rabbi. Her questions are valid refutations of your assertion that Jews don't believe the Messiah will be a man and could very well be a woman.

You said:
But Judaism does not believe that the messiah is necessarily male (or a person, for that matter).
End of quote


This is a very strong statment.

Where does Judaism teach that? Where is that found? Is it your personal interpreation of something? Perhaps you are the one who should be asking the rabbi.
Reply #608 from Stardock Forums Top

Lula,

After reading your apology for the CC and her restrictions as regards reading material, one wonders how you can allow yourself to transgress by reading these posts?  Your words are inflammatory and devisive, I feel.  They are the very definition of narrow minded and unenlightened.  Thoughts regards truth such as yours are more appropriate to the dark ages, a Catholic induced phenomonon, I might add.

Is it possible for you to posit a positive aspect of CC without denigrating other faith traditions?

I wonder.

 

Be well.

Reply #609 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC POSTS:
hahahah I think when you and I get together we both learn wouldn't you say?


LEauki posts:
Why do you think I translate Bible verses as a hobby for a Web forum discussion?

I am not trying to convert anyone.

I do it because it forces me to learn.
End of quote


The same here. Discussing religion is not about converting anyone, as SoDaiho would say, "goodness"!

It's about sharing the truth and defending the Church and Catholicism whenever I see it misrepresented or maligned.

That these discussions are a great learning experience for me is an understatement.
Reply #610 from JoeUser Forums Top
That these discussions are a great learning experience for me is an understatement.
End of quote


Yet with all this learning we cannot seem to share a truth. God is everywhere, manifests Himself in multiple ways, speaks every language, and is the Truth. Each of us sees a facet of that truth, but none can possibly possess its entirety.

Be well
Reply #611 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sodaiho posts:
Is it possible for you to posit a positive aspect of CC without denigrating other faith traditions?
End of quote


Regarding my comment #606, I've always done my best to explain the doctrines and teachings of Catholicsm as truthfully as I know how...if that comes across to you as my denigrating other faith traditions, I can't help that.

You may believe in Indifferentism, that says all paths lead to God, but I don't... which means that one of us has the truth. You may have missed reading my post #525 and I wonder how would you respond?

I'll repost here for your convenience......

Lula's post #525:

The point that I have been trying to make all this time if you'd read all my posts was that no one religion possesses the truth.

LEAUKI POSTS:
Jews don't believe that one religion possesses the truth. Jews believe that G-d gave specific laws to Jews, and might or might not have different plans for other peoples. Zoroastrians believed that the Jewish religion and their own was the same. Islam believes that any religion that acknowledges one god and a beginning and end of time is "true" and true enough to allow its adherents to go to heaven.

Christians believe that their religion is the only true religion, but we are already talking to them and telling them that we don't believe that.


LULA POSTS: Yes, you are, but only one of us has the truth.

Both Hebraic and modern day Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Muhammadism) believe there is one God, yet, they are 3 distinct religions.

I've already expressed my thoughts as what only religion possesses the truth. It's Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. I say this because Rabbinic Judaism, Islam and all the various Protestant sects are man-made containing truth mixed with error.

There is only one truth in religion. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true because we happen to believe them. Truth is in possession. It's also consistent.

While truth can be viewed from different angles, truth cannot be different from itself. We cannot say that people who believe contradictory things are viewing the same truths though.
End of quote






Reply #612 from Stardock Forums Top

You may have missed reading my post #525 and I wonder how would you respond?
End of quote

I've already expressed my thoughts as what only religion possesses the truth. It's Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. I say this because Rabbinic Judaism, Islam and all the various Protestant sects are man-made containing truth mixed with error.
End of quote

 

Hello Again,

Sorry to contradict you, but even Catholicism is "man made".  Lets assume that your Jesus was God incarnate, which of course, he was not. He was a Jew wanting other Jews to follow his way of being Jewish.   He did not create Christianity or the Catholic Church.  That was the apostles. Or perhaps you think the apostles weren't men?

 

Judaism, on the other hand, follows the revealed word of God and is loyal to His word. It had to adapt after the destruction ogf the Temple just as the Church adapted when Jesus failed to show up again.

Truth is much larger than you think.

Be well.

 

Reply #613 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC POSTS: #535
How about Zechariah who said that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey written hundreds of years before? Do you know what that symbolized?
End of quote


LEAUKI POSTS:
I _believe_ it symbolises that the Messiah could be of seemingle humble origins... Could also mean that he is rich enough to own a donkey. Could be a metaphor for anything, really. Ask a rabbi.
End of quote


KFC POSTS:
Over 500 years before the birth of Christ Zechariah saw this vision of the Messiah riding royally into Jerusalem on a donkey (and he was male) just as David and his sons had ridden centuries before. This prophecy completely came true when Christ came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday proving He was Israel's Messiah. So it stands for royalty.

Jesus owned nothing. He was completly selfless. He owned no house, no propety, no money, nothing. He came into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey and ate in a borrowed upper room and was buried in a borrowed tomb. So this was quite telling his riding into Jerusalem like a king.
End of quote


SODAIHO POSTS: #544
Excuse me, but just what else might this messiah be riding?
End of quote


Good question SoDaiho.

Here are the two passages:

Zacharais 9:9, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout for joy O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy King will come to thee, the just and savior: He is poor and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

In describing Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, St.Matt. 21:1-7 repeats part of what Zacharias says,

"And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, unto Mount OLive, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 Saying to them, Go into the village that is opposite you and immediately you will find an ass tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to me. 3 And if anyone shall say anything to you, you shall say that the Lord has need of them, and immediately he will let them go. 4 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, sayying,

"Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and the colt, the foal of her, that is used to the yoke."

6 And the disciples going did as Jesus commanded them. 7 And they brought the ass and the colt and laid their garments upon them and made Him a seat thereon."

What's it all mean? In His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus reveals Himself as the Messias as St.Matthew and St.John stress by quoting the prophecy of Zacharais. My research shows that while the Latin translation says "mounted on a (female) ass, the Hebrew text says mounted on a (male) ass and the later text from the Greek Septuagint, no sex is specified.

Both Sts. Mark and Luke has Jesus telling them to "go into the village opposite you and immediately you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat; untie it and bring it." They also have Jesus riding the colt...and this presents no contradiction with St.Matthew who of course mentions both an ass and her foal which would not have come without the mother by its side.

St,Matthew sees in the fact that the colt is with the ass as a further detail of the prophecy, although Jesus was mounted only on the colt)! In the prophecy of Zacharais the future Messanaic king is described as poor meaning humble. Turns out the ass, originally a noble mount (Gen. 22:3; Ex. 4:20 and Numbers 22:21, was replaced by the horse in the period of the Israelite monarchy 1Kings 4:26; 10:28. The prophecy by referring to the ass, shows that the King of Peace wins His victory by humility and gentleness, not by force of arms.

The Church Fathers claim there is a deeper meaning to all this...

They see the ass as symbolizing Judaism, for long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal on which no one had ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church.

As well as figuratively speaking, the colt which was never sat upon represents the New Covenant with its King, Jesus who in humility assumed flesh for mankind,while the ass represents the Old Covenant as the source of the New Covenant.
Reply #614 from JoeUser Forums Top
Truth is much larger than you think.
End of quote


Hello SoDaiho,

Truth may be large or it may be small, but that's not the point.

The larger point is there is only one truth...and neither you nor I can escape it.

There is only one truth in religion. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true because we happen to believe them. Truth is in possession. It's also consistent.

While truth can be viewed from different angles, truth cannot be different from itself.


We cannot say that people who believe contradictory things are viewing the same truths though.

I've stated my belief that the supernatural religion of Christ is Catholicism, Hebraic Judaism blossomed, but not yet fully and won't be until the end of the world. You disagree saying Christ isn't God Incarnate, He didn't create Christianity or the Catholic Church. OK.

One of us has possession of the truth.

If you have the truth on this and since my belief conflicts with yours, then I don't possess the truth. And if I'm right, then you haven't got the truth.

One can't speak the truth unless one has the truth in possession.




Reply #615 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow.  An passive aggressive attack on Christianity.  On the internet.  By someone from your, uh, cohort.  In 2008.

Can I tell you how original you are?  The sheer creativity is quite frightening, really.

Reply #616 from JoeUser Forums Top
SoDaiho posts: #543
I see Paul saying women should not be leaders, that they should remain silent (and let the men do the talking) and I read women such as Lula and KFC defending this as non-sexist. Oy.
End of quote


Let's start by correcting your statement.....

First, let's be clear that St.Paul is prohibiting women from teaching in acts of public worship...in other words in all the churches. Yes, there, it's men who are to do the talking and are in authority.

It's impossible for someone like St.Paul, who regarding the proper order of relationships, tells me something for my own good and happiness, to be sexist.

While you're listening to the radical feminists, I listen to St.Paul.


Reply #617 from Stardock Forums Top

The prophecy by referring to the ass, shows that the King of Peace wins His victory by humility and gentleness, not by force of arms. The Church Fathers claim there is a deeper meaning to all this... They see the ass as symbolizing Judaism, for long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal on which no one had ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church. As well as figuratively speaking, the colt which was never sat upon represents the New Covenant with its King, Jesus who in humility assumed flesh for mankind,while the ass represents the Old Covenant as the source of the New Covenant.
End of quote

 

Hello Lula,   In such times donkeys were a common conveyance and work animal.  Nothing special.  Signs and symbols are only signs and symbols, not to be confused with reality, regardless of how the church interprets them. And if they are, indeed, signs and symbols they are open to numerous alternative interpretations. On the other hand a donkey just may a donkey.

You have faith in your church because it demands it and to think critically about it would appear as a crack in that faith. If I were a Catholic I might do the same, but then, I don't know...I understand American Catholics aren't so willing to toe the party line.

You and KFC seem to think the Bible is a highly symbolic script. You would, apparently, be lost without it.  But it is, afterall, just a book with words, ancient words, printed in it.  The real Torah, the real Holy Scripture, is life itself.  And life is in constant motion.  Constantly evolving, changing, processing. To attempt to interpret thousand year old texts in a way that makes sense today without being in touch with the Infinite is an exercise in futility and, I believe, an insult to God.  Scripture is, at best, a guideline or gateway to Oneness.

 

 

To be fair Jews do much the same.  Seeing the entire universe in the Torah.  I see this interpretive focus, when obsessive, to be as blind to the truth as any blindness could be.

 

A truly spiritual life is a life lived with an open heart, a heart open to the entire universe as it speaks to it, often in whispers, sometimes in text, but more often not.

 

Be well.

Reply #618 from Stardock Forums Top

DaffidSantosHubina
End of quote
Wow. An passive aggressive attack on Christianity. On the internet. By someone from your, uh, cohort. In 2008. Can I tell you how original you are? The sheer creativity is quite frightening, really.
End of quote

 

Dear Daffy,  Who and what post are you referring to?  There are no passive-aggressive attacks here.  They are pretty straight forward.

 

See ya.

Reply #619 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why would it have a bearing on the upcoming Messiah?
End of quote



KFC POSTS: #549
The record of Abraham's obedience to God in offering his son Isaac clearly prefigures the offering of God's own son Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice for humanity. I love the exchange between Isaac and Abraham:

"Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes my son?" Abraham replied
"The fire and the wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering my son."
End of quote


well as far as I know I thought everyone took this for granted as it's been believed and thought this way for thousands of years.


Leauki posts #556
I can ask my Catholic friends, if you like. But I am pretty sure they will hardly know the precise story.

It also doesn't matter how many people believe it. It's still a stretch.
End of quote


There's lots of lessons for us to glean in the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Of Abraham, it's strength of living faith, as his faith was put to the most severe test when God after promising him a numerous posterity, commanded him to sacrifice Isaac, the son through whom alone he could have any descendants. Abraham believed so firmly that he is called a man of great faith. His example ought to lead us to believe firmly in God's word and trust in His goodness and faithfulness, whatever our temptations and trials may be. Abraham loved God above all things.

Can you imagnine Abraham how sorely his heart was as he travelled along with Isaac, his son so dear to him, for 3 long days to the place of the sacrifice?

Isaac was a type of Jesus Christ but not a perfect type of the Sacrifice of Our Lord.

---The birth of Isaac was promised repeatedly. So was the coming of Jesus Christ.
---Isaac was the only and dearly beloved son of his father and Jesus Christ is the only begotten and beloved Son of God in whom His Father is well pleased.
---Isaac was obedient to his father and was willing out of obedience to give up his life,letting himself be bound, and waiting patiently for the death-stroke.
---Jesus Christ was obedient to His Heavenly Father unto death, even on the Cross.
---As a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb He opened not His mouth.
---Isaac himself carried up the mountain the wood on which he would be slaughtered.
---Christ carried up to Calvary the Cross on which He was to die.

The one main point in which the sacrifice of Isaac was completely different is that when Apraham was ready to slay his son, an angel intervened and would not permit the sacrifice to be completed becasue sinful man cannot be redeemed by a human sacrifice. God spared the son of Abraham, but did not spare His own Son, but gave Him over to a painful death for our sakes. On Calvary when the executioners raised their hammers and nailed to the Cross the Hands and Feet of God made Man, there was no angel crying out to stop. The Sacrifice was completed and the Son of God died for us on the Cross in unutterable agony of Soul and Body. "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son , that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."





Reply #620 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sodaiho posts:
You have faith in your church because it demands it and to think critically about it would appear as a crack in that faith. If I were a Catholic I might do the same, but then, I don't know...I understand American Catholics aren't so willing to toe the party line.
End of quote


No, I have faith in Christ who established the Church and promised to be with her until the end of the world. It's really that simple. I won't deny that I've questioned the Church and her teachings more times than I care to count, but always come back to the fact that the Church is here for me as a gift from Christ. Once this is fully understood, it's only a fool who gives her up or turns away.......and sadly, many, many have. You are quite correct that many Catholics don't toe the party line...and this too is something Christ predicted that scandals would come.

Another thing that I've found so interesting is that the more I read, study and meditate Scripture, which I love to do, the more my faith is strengthened. I understand all the little things about the Church so much better.



Reply #621 from JoeUser Forums Top
SoDaiho posts:
There are no passive-aggressive attacks here. They are pretty straight forward.
End of quote


I'll second that!
Reply #622 from JoeUser Forums Top
He did not create Christianity or the Catholic Church. That was the apostles
End of quote


No it wasn't either Jesus or the Apostles, it was indeed Paul of Tarsus. Before you bother to tell me that I am wrong in this either you Lula, or KF(C?), you'd best reread the apostles testimony of what Jesus told them about praying in seclusion, which means BEING BY ONESELF, and not in the presence of others. That is what the Pharisees did, are the members of the christian faith the pharisees that Jesus spoke of. Most definately yes. They've built great temples to themselves called cathedrals, and they call it the house of god, and yet Jesus said the temple of God is not made of stone or other earthly things but resides within, you say you follow him, but you do not, you still as did the jewish nation follow yourselves. You gather in churches, and football stadiums, and in televised chapels,and drive in chapels and you think that this is somehow pleasing to God, and by extension the Christ. You sing your own praises at the tops of your lungs, while all the time you are disguising it in Jesus' name and Gods as well. You set your religions up as being the only holders of the truth, and don't recognize the truth that also resides as well within other religions. You believe the worst of them, which is not "loving thy enemies". You keep none of Jesus' admonishes, not a one, instead you follow he that is like you.

Many of you are like Job. You are "righteous" but you don't walk with god. God blessed Job because of his righteousness, and then he allowed satan to bring Job to his knees, to see if he would curse god. Job didn't "he asked why" instead and God restored all that Job had previously lost. But Job died when his house of stone fell on him. He didn't walk with God. He walked instead with the things of the earth, so he died by things of the earth. What a pity, he could have had his freedom. No more death, no more pain, but he was content and was of the mistaken idea that all he needed to do was be righteous, and love god. Jesus said that a man would have to hate his life in order to follow him.

You argue about who's religion is correct the bible or the torah, and where the ark came to rest, whether or not animals came or were already present, and whether the flood that is spoken of in the bible and torah was worldwide or not. You argue about the past, and you don't see present, and you mistakenly believe that there is a future. As Shakespeares' Puck so wisely said in a "Mid Summers Night Dream", "what fools these mortals be."

The "kingdom" of heaven is right before your eyes, it's all around you, and yet you don't see it. Instead of arguing about the past, and which religious view is correct, you should be wondering why you don't see it. You are as Jesus said not the Faithful Servant, you are instead asleep, and not watchful at all, and eternity passes you by because of it.

Reply #623 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come to thee to keep them alive."

and later in Chap 7 it says the animals came to him in v9 and 14-15. Noah was already in the ark and the animals came to him.
End of quote


Yes, it says that that animals from the land came to him. This suggests to me that they were his animals (or local animals that knew him or his estate).

Your quote, btw, doesn't mention "eretz". It speaks of "every creeping thing of the _adama_". "Adama" is "earth", as in the material. (In fact it is a type of red sand; "adom" means "red".)

It's a pity that both "eretz" (earth, land, territory) and "adama" (earth, red sand) are translated as "earth", but that doesn't make them the same.



Go back to the beginning in 1:1 when it says "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." what does the Hebrew say? Is it the same word as what I've been quoting about the earth in the flood?
End of quote


Yes. And it means the same thing: "earth" as in "land".

1:1 juxtaposes "eretz" with "shamayim". "Shamayim" looks like it is derived from "mayim" ("water", or more precisely "waters", both words are plural). In Genesis 1:1 "eretz" does not refer to the planet "earth", but to the concept "earth as opposed to heaven", with "heaven" being the same type of thing as "water". Think "dry land" as opposed to "not dry land".

"Shamayim" ("heavens") contain other planets. Planet earth is not the opposite of all other planets. "Earth" as in "dry land" is the opposite of "heavens".

Perhaps you are thinking "shamayim" refers to "heaven" as in "seventh heaven". But Judaism doesn't have a concept of "heaven" like Christianity and Islam do. "Shamayim" simply refers to "heaven" in the sense "more like water than like dry earth for the purpose of human life".

I am not saying "eretz" can never mean "earth, the planet". But when a translation as "world" (earth, the planet) doesn't make as much sense as a translation as "land", why pick "earth, the planet"? In Hebrew neither is the true meaning of "eretz", as the words simply don't map precisely.

But if you read the Bible and think of "eretz" as "earth, the entire planet", you will get funny results and it won't end with an impossible flood but with other things you probably won't accept.

If you want to read the Bible literally, do it; but don't decide when to read it literally and when to read metaphors into it.

If you read it literally, G-d is corporeal (even before Jesus), the entire planet was flooded, and Israel is a planet. And that reading already requires you to read "eretz" as "earth, the planet" rather than "dry land", where the second is the better approximation of the meaning of Hebrew "eretz".

First thing you should do is make sure you differentiate between "eretz" ("earth", "dry land", the thing one stands on) and "adama" ("earth", "red sand", the thing it's made of).

The first is used whenever a territory of any kind is described and the relevant feature is "not heaven or water". The second is used whenever the ground itself is described and the relevant feature is "it's sort of sandy and it looks a bit red".

Also note that people 5000 years ago did not differentiate between their land and the world. They didn't know where the world ended (or that it was round). If you think people read this story 3000 years ago and saw a round planet with a watery surface, you fall for an anachronism.
Reply #624 from JoeUser Forums Top
I looked up "earths" on Google and most hits are about "earth" (Singular) and "earth's" (Genitive Singular).

There was one headline about "sister earths" we might find.
Reply #625 from JoeUser Forums Top

Her questions are valid refutations of your assertion that Jews don't believe the Messiah will be a man and could very well be a woman.
End of quote


Lula,

Her statements are not valid refutations at all.

Sodaiho has already addressed the donkey issue. KFC doesn't explain why "riding a donkey" implies "man". As for the crucifixion issue, KFC merely _stated_ that it was predicted but also said that the word was never used.

So how am I supposed to refute those statements apart from what was already said?

Here's your list of KFC's "refutations of my assertion". I have already replied to each of them, despite your claim that I hadn't refuted them.

But let's go through them again. KFC's "evidence" for the Messiah necessarily being a man is:


KFC POSTS:
How about all the Pharisees and Jews of the NT who question both Jesus and John the Baptist asking if they were the Messiah?
End of quote


This proves, if the story is even true, that people expected a male Messiah or thought that he could be male. It doesn't prove that the Messiah could only be male. They merely thought that a male human being could be the Messiah.



KFC POSTS:
How about the cruel prediction of crucifixion in both Isaiah and Psalms of this Messiah? Would they have done that with a woman?
End of quote


A crucifixion wasn't predicted at all. KFC merely read that into the text when she decided not to be literal for a moment.

Besides, none of us know (or at least nobody came up and stated) whether Roman law allowed for the execution of women. I don't see why a woman cannot be predicted to die on the cross. Do we have any stats on crucifixions in the Roman Empire that back up the claim that a crucifixion is proof for the victim being a man?


KFC POSTS:
How about Zechariah who said that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey written hundreds of years before? Do you know what that symbolized?
End of quote


Women and men can ride donkeys and the donkey was the typical riding animal at the time.

Here KFC decides to read literal again and then decides that it is a metaphor also.


I looked up the crucifixion issue, and found this:

"Women were subject to crucifixion just as were men (cf. Josephus, Antiquitaties 18.79ff.). In fact, women had far fewer rights and far less respect than men in the Roman Empire, so it would have been more likely rather than less likely that they would have been subjected to cruel punishment."

http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99832.qna/category/ch/page/questions/site/iiim


So at the end you have a prediction that doesn't exist of a crucifixion that could happen to a woman as proof that the person predicted to be crucified in the prediction that doesn't exist would necessarily be a man.

That's weak, even for "Isaac's birth is a prediction of Jesus' birth" standards.