|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 28, 2022 9:23:26 GMT -5
And when I say ‘our government’, it’s clear Americans have different ideas of what government should and should not do. In enumerating the powers of government, and adopting a bill of rights, the framers of our constitution sought to protect us from our own “best” interests. What a farcical, pharisaical, concept of civil "rights" -- the right of the government determine what is YOUR best interest. Yes, "if" -- but they didn't. They were tired of the government doing "what the government thought was good for them". |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 28, 2022 9:30:18 GMT -5
Above are two quotes from Bob.
I’m not sure if it’s your persuasion the founding fathers of America were being pharisaical or not.
Youre convinced I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 28, 2022 9:37:57 GMT -5
If you had your druthers, what expression of governance would you choose to live under, or through? A full democracy. If it were perfect for Bob, it would be perfect for everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 28, 2022 9:44:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 28, 2022 10:07:21 GMT -5
Perhaps a few questions for you Lee. When one looks at the earliest writings about Jesus, the image of Jesus that emerges is quite different from what we find in the Gospels. In pre-Gospel Christian writings we find only the Lord Jesus Christ, a powerful eternal heavenly being who is worshiped because he will bring judgment upon the world in its final days - a being who has overcome death, who will bring eternal life to the righteous and destroy the ungodly. Workers (for the most part) take the approach of viewing the Gospels as a record of the earliest accounts of Jesus, while largely disregarding the Christian writings that were actually written before the Gospels (if they even know of them). Yes, a few (a very few0 workers acknowledge that the earliest writings about Jesus are mythic in nature, they just rationalize this by claiming that these mythic writings reflect the fact that Jesus had “died and gone to heaven.” But this is a post-hoc rationalization that comes from the assumption that the Gospels are an account of a narrative about the life of Jesus that pre-dates the pre-Gospel writings. The problem, however, is that there is no explanation in the pre-Gospel writings about why these people would believe that some person had taken on this powerful heavenly form. Indeed, when we look at the pre-Gospel writings in their own context, without superimposing later Gospel ideas on them, we are left with the impression that the Jesus those people were worshiping was an eternal heavenly deity, that they believed had been revealed to them through mystic interpretations of the Jewish scriptures. Of course, most all here will recognize the writing being spoken about is Paul and while Jesus is mythical in those letters the letters themselves are unknown before the early second century CE. The earliest core of those letters is the Christ hymn in philippians 2 (originally written in Aramaic) and that just tells a story that seems to say that Yahweh himself descended, died, was raised to become Yahweh. And this later was topped in the Gospels as Jesus saves. I cannot now remember just which worker it was that many years ago told me I was mistaken because It was not YHWH himself that was being referenced but his servant: Isaiah’s servant. And furthered added that Philippians 2 is based on Isaiah 52:13-53:12. And OfCourse as Nathan would advise us (or is it Wally) God who is the author of all this is not the God of confusion so we must accept the workers explanation because they are his servants and know much more than we do. Additionally, I notice that it says at the name of Jesus every tongue. ..etc. not yahweh. The high god is El elyon. There is something in Margret barker's books on this (but I read it so long ago I can’t remember her argument). But her point was the suffering servant is what mark used not the Christ hymn. Yes, I know there are many who will claim that the chronological claim is simply false. And they will offer that First Corinthians is the first Christian text to be extensively cited and is the direct textual antecedent to the eucharistic language in Mark. The early second century witness of the Pauline corpus as a whole (Marcion as quoted by his enemies) provides a solid picture of the developed form of Paul (including all seven real and the first three of the six fakes) were in use before circa 138 and had diverged in their manuscript typology. The form of that corpus in Asia Minor and Rome was a precursor to WESTERN manuscript traditions and had distinctive traits proving it had already diverged via several generations of transcription from the text streams represented by the (slightly later circa ~200) P46 pre-Alexandrian text type. The number of transcriptions before 138 must have been numerous. Furthermore, 1 Cor is also cited and alluded to by the earliest Patristic authors. It was not only existent, but widely circulated in the late first century. And then these supporters will end by stating this interpretation of the authentic Pauline epistles is only found among mythicists. There are numerous indications that he (Paul) is talking about a person who was born a Jew, lived, and was crucified - all of which would have happened on earth. Paul’s theology is more consistent with exaltation rather than an eternal being. All-in-all I admit over the years I have vacillated between these two views. So, I must ask why has the God of non-confusion left me to drift? |
|
|
|
Post by verna on Sept 28, 2022 10:34:07 GMT -5
So then you do realize that Paul did not actually “meet” Jesus?
Not in person, but in a sense, if someone talks to you and you converse with them, you've essentially met them. “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22: 7-10)
Often it’s a sign of severe mental illness. |
|
nathan2
Royal Member
Nathan again
50%
Posts: 5,258
|
Post by nathan2 on Sept 28, 2022 14:46:22 GMT -5
Not in person, but in a sense, if someone talks to you and you converse with them, you've essentially met them. “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22: 7-10)
Often it’s a sign of severe mental illness. ** Paul's life and his followers have preserved Christ's New Testament Church 2x2 apostolic ministry on the earth and faithful men, women, boys, and girls through the centuries have kept it alive even to our days and generation. The True gospel of Christ's gospel and ministry have prospered and it has spread to all nations the last 2000 years and even to our days and it will continue to the time of Jesus returns to establish His eternal as King of kings and Lord of lords on earth and the universe. That doesnt sound like Paul had severe mental illness in his head because his life, ministry, testimony, experiences, epistles to his followers are still helpful for nearly 2000 years even in our days. I don't believe a mental illness nutcase can have that much influences in millions and billions lives. The resurrected Christ expound the mystery of the Godhead, Christ the I AM that IAM God of the Second Supreme being of the Godhead to Paul and he went on to share it with the believers. God the Father is the Most high God of the Triune God. The Holy Spirit/God is teaching and revealing the Godhead to true believers and the world. So, I say Paul was a true godly and servant of the Most high God and Christ and he wasn't 100% perfect but good enough for God to sent him as one of his ambassador to the world with the gospel message of Salvation Christ Jesus SAVES us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2022 14:48:19 GMT -5
Perhaps a few questions for you Lee. When one looks at the earliest writings about Jesus, the image of Jesus that emerges is quite different from what we find in the Gospels. In pre-Gospel Christian writings we find only the Lord Jesus Christ, a powerful eternal heavenly being who is worshiped because he will bring judgment upon the world in its final days - a being who has overcome death, who will bring eternal life to the righteous and destroy the ungodly. Workers (for the most part) take the approach of viewing the Gospels as a record of the earliest accounts of Jesus, while largely disregarding the Christian writings that were actually written before the Gospels (if they even know of them). Yes, a few (a very few0 workers acknowledge that the earliest writings about Jesus are mythic in nature, they just rationalize this by claiming that these mythic writings reflect the fact that Jesus had “died and gone to heaven.” But this is a post-hoc rationalization that comes from the assumption that the Gospels are an account of a narrative about the life of Jesus that pre-dates the pre-Gospel writings. The problem, however, is that there is no explanation in the pre-Gospel writings about why these people would believe that some person had taken on this powerful heavenly form. Indeed, when we look at the pre-Gospel writings in their own context, without superimposing later Gospel ideas on them, we are left with the impression that the Jesus those people were worshiping was an eternal heavenly deity, that they believed had been revealed to them through mystic interpretations of the Jewish scriptures. Of course, most all here will recognize the writing being spoken about is Paul and while Jesus is mythical in those letters the letters themselves are unknown before the early second century CE. The earliest core of those letters is the Christ hymn in philippians 2 (originally written in Aramaic) and that just tells a story that seems to say that Yahweh himself descended, died, was raised to become Yahweh. And this later was topped in the Gospels as Jesus saves. I cannot now remember just which worker it was that many years ago told me I was mistaken because It was not YHWH himself that was being referenced but his servant: Isaiah’s servant. And furthered added that Philippians 2 is based on Isaiah 52:13-53:12. And OfCourse as Nathan would advise us (or is it Wally) God who is the author of all this is not the God of confusion so we must accept the workers explanation because they are his servants and know much more than we do. Additionally, I notice that it says at the name of Jesus every tongue. ..etc. not yahweh. The high god is El elyon. There is something in Margret barker's books on this (but I read it so long ago I can’t remember her argument). But her point was the suffering servant is what mark used not the Christ hymn. Yes, I know there are many who will claim that the chronological claim is simply false. And they will offer that First Corinthians is the first Christian text to be extensively cited and is the direct textual antecedent to the eucharistic language in Mark. The early second century witness of the Pauline corpus as a whole (Marcion as quoted by his enemies) provides a solid picture of the developed form of Paul (including all seven real and the first three of the six fakes) were in use before circa 138 and had diverged in their manuscript typology. The form of that corpus in Asia Minor and Rome was a precursor to WESTERN manuscript traditions and had distinctive traits proving it had already diverged via several generations of transcription from the text streams represented by the (slightly later circa ~200) P46 pre-Alexandrian text type. The number of transcriptions before 138 must have been numerous. Furthermore, 1 Cor is also cited and alluded to by the earliest Patristic authors. It was not only existent, but widely circulated in the late first century. And then these supporters will end by stating this interpretation of the authentic Pauline epistles is only found among mythicists. There are numerous indications that he (Paul) is talking about a person who was born a Jew, lived, and was crucified - all of which would have happened on earth. Paul’s theology is more consistent with exaltation rather than an eternal being. All-in-all I admit over the years I have vacillated between these two views. So, I must ask why has the God of non-confusion left me to drift? James and Galatians come before Matt and Mark 1/2 Thess. and 1/2 Cor. and Rom. come before Luke which was about 59AD The rest of the NT comes before John except for 1-3 John and Revelation They all fit and work together perfectly. There is no confusion. You chose a path of unbelief which has a hefty amount of confusion. The Lord gave you what you were seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 28, 2022 15:34:27 GMT -5
Paul perverted Jesus gospel imo. Jesus was about love and acceptance of others etc. Paul was the opposite. He divided Christians, he said many hateful things and was totally against women and their rights. Jesus was for women and their rights. I often think it's really too bad that the Pauline mindset is the one that made it into mainstream Christianity instead of Jesus version.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Sept 28, 2022 17:16:04 GMT -5
So then you do realize that Paul did not actually “meet” Jesus?
Not in person, but in a sense, if someone talks to you and you converse with them, you've essentially met them. “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22: 7-10)
It's art Dan, not a literal conversation. |
|
nathan2
Royal Member
Nathan again
50%
Posts: 5,258
|
Post by nathan2 on Sept 28, 2022 17:35:55 GMT -5
Paul perverted Jesus gospel imo. Jesus was about love and acceptance of others etc. Paul was the opposite. He divided Christians, he said many hateful things and was totally against women and their rights. Jesus was for women and their rights. I often think it's really too bad that the Pauline mindset is the one that made it into mainstream Christianity instead of Jesus version. ** Pauline doctrines are from Christ Jesus himself. Christ gave John the apostle, Paul a clear understanding of the Godhead/Triune God so, they could share it with the world. Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Luke, John Mark and those lime them whom God and Christ raised up to encourage the 12 apostle to let go of Moses Old Testament laws, animals rituals sacrifices and so on and have their faith and trust in Christ Jesus who SAVES us and NOT by obeying Moses Old Testament books of laws, which couldn't SAVE anyone who practices. In Acts 15 the 12 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, the church elders in Jerusalem came together to discuss of the problem about some were teachings for the Gentiles to be SAVED they must keep some of Moses teachings also. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, Peter and James agree with Paul's understanding! It's Faith in Christ Jesus SAVES and NOT observing Moses laws. It seems to me the believers in Rome in Paul's days did NOT want to keep observing the Laws of Moses and many of the Old testament rituals, the New testament teachings of Jesus and they many pagans religions practices within the way of their worship... Eventually they became known in the 3rd century as the Rome Catholic Church. In Rome there were a group of believers Christians, they were Paul's converts/followers opposed where the RCC were doing and heading in the WRONG path. These true believers wanted to follow Christ Jesus New Testament pattern and apostolic ministry. By the end of the 4th century Paul's followers were chased out of Rome and they went to Alps valley mountain near France, they became known as the Vaudois. They and those like them scattered throughout Europe and continued preaching Christ Jesus New Testament teachings and the apostolic ministry like we read in the gospel of Matthew 10 and Luke 10. The RCC sent their own army and crusade to wipe them out from the face of the earth for over 1500 years. This history was foretold by John the apostle in Rev. Chapters 11,12, and 13. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2022 17:55:00 GMT -5
Above are two quotes from Bob. I’m not sure if it’s your persuasion the founding fathers of America were being pharisaical or not. Youre convinced I am. The founding fathers weren't. You're interpretation of purpose of those amendments are at the very least amateurish, if not full blown pharisaical. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2022 17:57:13 GMT -5
If it were perfect for Bob, it would be perfect for everyone? Actually, Bob votes against his own best interests frequently, especially when it will protect the less privileged. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2022 18:05:08 GMT -5
That's not scripture -- that's presupposition. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 29, 2022 2:37:29 GMT -5
Paul perverted Jesus gospel imo. Jesus was about love and acceptance of others etc. Paul was the opposite. He divided Christians, he said many hateful things and was totally against women and their rights. Jesus was for women and their rights. I often think it's really too bad that the Pauline mindset is the one that made it into mainstream Christianity instead of Jesus version.
Funny how 2 people can read the same books and come away with a completely different impression. To me, Paul was no different than Jesus, he just elaborated on what Jesus taught and didn't introduce a different version. I don't recall anything hateful against women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 29, 2022 3:02:04 GMT -5
Not in person, but in a sense, if someone talks to you and you converse with them, you've essentially met them. “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22: 7-10)
Countless people hear voices in the head. It seems to be a great way to start a new cult. Common sense tells us that it's a load of bollocks. What gives it credibility is that the same voice provided Paul with the gift of healing (Acts28:8). So the conversation with Jesus on the road to Damascus was not an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 6:24:52 GMT -5
Perhaps a few questions for you Lee. When one looks at the earliest writings about Jesus, the image of Jesus that emerges is quite different from what we find in the Gospels. In pre-Gospel Christian writings we find only the Lord Jesus Christ, a powerful eternal heavenly being who is worshiped because he will bring judgment upon the world in its final days - a being who has overcome death, who will bring eternal life to the righteous and destroy the ungodly. That vision is in the gospels and epistles too. To address your point, not every witness of Jesus appreciated him exactly the same. Writers/observers are at different points of maturity, interests, and backgrounds. The gospels themselves present the apostles' appreciation or recognition of Jesus as an evolving or growing matter. Compared to you and most people, I'm underread. I read Enoch this year. In Enoch, Jesus figures as a powerful eternal being who will bring judgment on the world. I think the long and the short of what you're saying is that the mythical conceptions of Jesus in literature precludes the historical figure from being the same person. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 6:41:40 GMT -5
That's not scripture -- that's presupposition. It's eisegesis. Eisegesis brings various ideas or presuppositions together into a coherent, aggregated form that's relatable and understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 6:51:58 GMT -5
If it were perfect for Bob, it would be perfect for everyone? Actually, Bob votes against his own best interests frequently, especially when it will protect the less privileged. There's more pleasure in giving than receiving? Please recall, when I wrote 'best interests', I placed 'best' in quotations. For instance, some people think it's in their "best" interest and society's "best" interest to allow and perform transgender operations on minors. I wish I could recall the founding father quote that used this phrase 'best interest'. It used the word 'best' in a skeptical sense. The idea was that our constitution was designed to restrain people and politicians from despotically ruling and taking advantage of others, even when, and especially when sometimes, they thought they were doing the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 6:57:38 GMT -5
Above are two quotes from Bob. I’m not sure if it’s your persuasion the founding fathers of America were being pharisaical or not. Youre convinced I am. The founding fathers weren't. You're interpretation of purpose of those amendments are at the very least amateurish, if not full blown pharisaical. You misunderstood me. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 29, 2022 7:29:34 GMT -5
Countless people hear voices in the head. It seems to be a great way to start a new cult. Common sense tells us that it's a load of bollocks. What gives it credibility is that the same voice provided Paul with the gift of healing (Acts28:8). So the conversation with Jesus on the road to Damascus was not an illusion. Thats's classic circular reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 29, 2022 8:29:45 GMT -5
Perhaps a few questions for you Lee. When one looks at the earliest writings about Jesus, the image of Jesus that emerges is quite different from what we find in the Gospels. In pre-Gospel Christian writings we find only the Lord Jesus Christ, a powerful eternal heavenly being who is worshiped because he will bring judgment upon the world in its final days - a being who has overcome death, who will bring eternal life to the righteous and destroy the ungodly. That vision is in the gospels and epistles too. To address your point, not every witness of Jesus appreciated him exactly the same. Writers/observers are at different points of maturity, interests, and backgrounds. The gospels themselves present the apostles' appreciation or recognition of Jesus as an evolving or growing matter. Compared to you and most people, I'm underread. I read Enoch this year. In Enoch, Jesus figures as a powerful eternal being who will bring judgment on the world. I think the long and the short of what you're saying is that the mythical conceptions of Jesus in literature precludes the historical figure from being the same person. Why? For just one item consider that some scholars seem to recognize Mark as a street play that was later put to a Gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 10:07:18 GMT -5
I’ve found in reading Mark, that it doesn’t flow or read as well as the other gospels. I take it, your perception Christianity has been founded on a mingling of myth and fact has caused a small crisis of what it is exactly you are to believe in, if you did.
I read everything through a filter of plausible, possible, and probable.
I don’t share the atheists view that miracles are impossible. For one, we’re momentarily experiencing the biggest miracle of all, life itself.
Two, technology could be used to create signs, by angels, which is the root meaning of the biblical word that comes to us in our language as miracle.
With respect to technology, I consider it possible there is nothing new under the sun, not even of what is known.
|
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 29, 2022 11:10:07 GMT -5
I’ve found in reading Mark, that it doesn’t flow or read as well as the other gospels. I take it, your perception Christianity has been founded on a mingling of myth and fact has caused a small crisis of what it is exactly you are to believe in, if you did. I read everything through a filter of plausible, possible, and probable. I don’t share the atheists view that miracles are impossible. For one, we’re momentarily experiencing the biggest miracle of all, life itself. Two, technology could be used to create signs, by angels, which is the root meaning of the biblical word that comes to us in our language as miracle. With respect to technology, I consider it possible there is nothing new under the sun, not even of what is known. No crisis , just wonder why so many others don't see what I see. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2022 11:58:49 GMT -5
It’s a long running superstition of mankind that he can do or say something to gain eternal life. To be sure, they’re related, but it’s best to rest the question over salvation on God. It minimizes or eliminates conflicts of interest regarding inquiries into the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by verna on Sept 29, 2022 12:35:12 GMT -5
I’ve found in reading Mark, that it doesn’t flow or read as well as the other gospels. I take it, your perception Christianity has been founded on a mingling of myth and fact has caused a small crisis of what it is exactly you are to believe in, if you did. I read everything through a filter of plausible, possible, and probable. I don’t share the atheists view that miracles are impossible. For one, we’re momentarily experiencing the biggest miracle of all, life itself. Two, technology could be used to create signs, by angels, which is the root meaning of the biblical word that comes to us in our language as miracle. With respect to technology, I consider it possible there is nothing new under the sun, not even of what is known. No crisis , just wonder why so many others don't see what I see. I may very well agree with what you’re saying intelchips but I don’t understand! Can someone else explain it to me in simple terms? I really want to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 29, 2022 13:08:32 GMT -5
No crisis , just wonder why so many others don't see what I see. I may very well agree with what you’re saying intelchips but I don’t understand! Can someone else explain it to me in simple terms? I really want to understand. Verna, whether any agree with me or not and whether the author of Mark intended it or not, the physical layout of the Gospel “resembles that of a five-act Hellenistic play, with the place of the four choruses taken by teaching scenes” (Beavis 1989, 163). . . . |
|
|
|
Post by verna on Sept 29, 2022 13:23:25 GMT -5
It’s a long running superstition of mankind that he can do or say something to gain eternal life. To be sure, they’re related, but it’s best to rest the question over salvation on God. It minimizes or eliminates conflicts of interest regarding inquiries into the truth. I’m fine with this letting God decide were it not for the threat of eternal torture. That’s just cruelty. Like “ya- just do your best. But if you get it wrong I’ll torture you forever in the worst ways imaginable”. |
|
