=Something Bad Jesus Did=

[herushura]

and it can be argued and demonstrated that Jesus *is* diety incarnate. He is clear that there is a relationship between Him and the Father, true. and that the Father gives all things to the Son. yet He says also that to know and see Him is to know and see God in the flesh. and His Messianic title, Imannuel, means "God with us". His name, a common one, Yeshua, means "God saves". God saves us through Jesus, and in Jesus, too.

What about Joshua Son of Nun, he was immanual, odd thing is that imannuel transliterated in egyptian "Imann-u-el" actually means Amen-is-god.
the tetagrammation of Amen is IMN. God already lived through Joshua son of nun,
jesus is a retold version of Joshua.

 

[ayani]

yet Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person, and the acts of the God of Israel were seen and greatly feared by the people of Egypt, including Pharaoh.

many world cultures have stories about the gods fathering a special person. it's as though Messianic prophecy finds its way, in differing forms, all over the world.

i would not say that these stories break down the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah and Son of God. rather, i'd say they bolster it. clearly, many peoples of the world had the story of a son of the gods, who would come and do great things, and somehow save or fix things.

see, all people originally got the message. Biblically, think back to the first men and women. they all knew of God, and the first messianic prophecy occeurs in Genesis 3:15. all peoples of the world descend from these ancestors. so naturally the story of a promised one will show up, albeit in distorted forms, using local gods to tell the story.

Jesus of Nazareth is the physical, historical, one-time fulfillment of these stories. He lived, breathed, died, and lives now. He is unique, and yet in Himself has the power to draw all peoples and nations to Himself. i would argue strongly it is He, and not others, these stories point to.

What about Joshua Son of Nun, he was immanual, odd thing is that imannuel transliterated in egyptian "Imann-u-el" actually means Amen-is-god.
the tetagrammation of Amen is IMN. God already lived through Joshua son of nun,
jesus is a retold version of Joshua.

 

[herushura]

yet Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person, and the acts of the God of Israel were seen and greatly feared by the people of Egypt, including Pharaoh.

many world cultures have stories about the gods fathering a special person. it's as though Messianic prophecy finds its way, in differing forms, all over the world.

i would not say that these stories break down the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah and Son of God. rather, i'd say they bolster it. clearly, many peoples of the world had the story of a son of the gods, who would come and do great things, and somehow save or fix things.

see, all people originally got the message. Biblically, think back to the first men and women. they all knew of God, and the first messianic prophecy occeurs in Genesis 3:15. all peoples of the world descend from these ancestors. so naturally the story of a promised one will show up, albeit in distorted forms, using local gods to tell the story.

Jesus of Nazareth is the physical, historical, one-time fulfillment of these stories. He lived, breathed, died, and lives now. He is unique, and yet in Himself has the power to draw all peoples and nations to Himself. i would argue strongly it is He, and not others, these stories point to.

I do have Historic Evidence of Jesus as an Historic Person, the bible is laid with clues to his identity. Jesus is called "Living image of God" intentionally.
"Living image of God" in egyptian spells "TUT-ANKH-ATUN" or Tutankhatun.
Now Tutankhamun reigned for Nine Years as King. here a biblical passage.
-2 Kings 17- Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel, and reigned nine years.

moses changed hoshea to joshua

Tutankhatum at birth was anointed with crocodile Fat, Mesheh is egyptian
for Holy Crocodile, and Mesheh is Messiah in hebrew. A title of tutankhamun
is "Son of God", reincarnation of god, it said that pharoahs have a spiritual birth,
from a virgin, unfortunatly tutankhamun was Tortured and was "Hung".

Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree"

Egyptian belived that the pharoah would ressurect and ascend into heaven, this is then symbolized by the egyptian Cross of life called Ankh.

See, now who says there no historic evidence of Jesus.

 

[ayani]

Heru...

Jesus is Jewish. His people are the seed of Abraham, who was called out of pagan Ur to found the nation which was to act as a light of God's truth to all the nations surrounding them. that includes the Egyptians, who had long ago set to worshiping idols, sacrificing animals to their numerous gods, and doing things which lead their hearts further from God.

the God who rained down terrible and amazing things on Egypt before the Hebrew people were set free was certainly not Amon. He was a new God to them, unknown in their pantheon, invisible, and apparently doing some very scary and impressive things.

like i've said, Messianic symbolism and ideas do get incorporated into many cultures, especially those physically near to the Hebrews. the Egyptian culture certainly pre-dates the calling of Abraham, and later Moses. yet human folly and erronious views are also very ancient. remember, Abaraham and Moses both had to be called. the indigenous cultures of their uobringing weren't going to tell them much about the God who made the heavens and the earth.

forms or allususions to a mighty Creator are all over world mythology. as are allusions to a son or savior. yet these blurred truths, i'd respond, are fulfilled in living color in the God of Israel (and everyone) and His unique Son, the Messiah Jesus.

it is they, the Father and the Son, to whom these cultures point. not the other way around. simply because something is ancient, doesn't mean it's right. and simply because something culturally pre-dates the calling of the Hebrew nation doesn't mean that it's a greater or purer truth.

 

[AK4]

Well, I wrote it plainly in English, so I do not know what you are not understanding. Do you want me to expound on the point?

If you wanna

 

[IF_u_knew]

the Bible doesn't tell us much more about Judas. he killed himself, and was replaced by Matthias. the story continues after that, through Acts and beyond the events described therein.

Perhaps you are just not looking in the right places? The NT is attached to what really is more than just a great piece of literature. :yes: I do not think though that this is an issue worthy of discussing with those who have their minds set that they have the whole truth (not meant to offend.. just pointless, since I have already stated this is merely speculation; something I assume to have the right to do since I was after all equipped with a mind designed for thinking, no?). I only am making the assumption that you have your mind set since I have listed places worthy of note concerning the raising of my speculations. I would even go as far to question if they (Jesus and Judas) were not one in the same person, but I feel comfortable in doing that since I enjoy what the Creator has given me and do not shame myself for questioning the things written by men. It has served me quite well in fact to do this.

and it can be argued and demonstrated that Jesus *is* diety incarnate. He is clear that there is a relationship between Him and the Father, true. and that the Father gives all things to the Son. yet He says also that to know and see Him is to know and see God in the flesh. and His Messianic title, Imannuel, means "God with us". His name, a common one, Yeshua, means "God saves". God saves us through Jesus, and in Jesus, too.

yet Jesus says it. He points continually to Himself, the flesh and blood person. He says that He *is* certain things, not simply that He acts as a vessel for certain things. Jesus lays strong emphasis on Himself, and His relationship to God. He tells crowds of people the there is something unique and important about Himself, the Man standing in front of you, talking to you. (John 6:25-58)

Many of the names in the Bible carry great significance. That is what makes the Word of G.d so fascinating. My stance on the NT is this, as I have stated, I have the ability to think and with that ability comes the realization that since the NT is attached to more writings, perhaps those writings are just as important... and ya know, in my opinion they are even more so. In fact, taking the advice of Isaiah and filtering the end through the beginning, I have been better able to decipher what is Truth and what is not.

Based on the actual words of Jesus... well, I am sure that he will not mind at all that I have chosen not to worship him, but rather to turn my eyes upon the LORD and crave after His Word. This is what I know. I do not know the man Jesus, but neither do I deny that his true message could have been tarnished by OTHERS (not by him) via the Hellenestic views and in that case, I feel very sad for him. I read Lamentations 3 and my heart goes out to *all* of those who have carried the burden of the Word of the LORD because it is just like man to corrupt something that many of us see as Holy and Pure. To see the image and the name of a man being given credit over the only True Saviour, being G.d, is heartbreaking; particularaly when it is your own and you have never condoned such a thing. It is one thing to follow the example set in the words of Jesus, but quite frankly, much of what you say you believe is paganistic views which does show lack of understanding for the Word of G.d.

 

[IF_u_knew]

If you wanna

Given the option, well, yeah.. I'd rather pass. When I can predict how a discussion will go, I do not really see the point of carrying it out. :no:

 

[ayani]

if ~

i do hear where you're coming from.

you've said that you don't believe He'd mind if you didn't worship Him, but turn your attention to the Lord God. what matters ultimately is not what we believe or even what others tell us is right. what matters is what is true in God's eyes.

who does He say Jesus is? this is a big question, yet answerable.

i do trust the Gospel narratives, penned within decades of Jesus' life and ministry, and in wide circulation while there were yet thousands of living witnesses to His life to read the material and confirm its truthfulness. i trust what it says regarding not only His deeds, but His teachings and claims.

many do not trust them. yet i see nothing Hellenistic or pagan in Jesus' words concerning Himself. He is talking about the real relationship between Himself and His Father, and what it means (or can mean) for us.

His claims to be the Son of God hearken back to the narrative of the virgin birth, and the question of Jesus' parentage. if Yosef did not father Him, who did? no female womb can spontaneously generate life on its own. a fathering power must be present. if not human seed, in His case the very Spirit of God.

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

herein we get the basis for His claim. it's less a case of inserted Hellenism, more a reasonable conclusion in light of a unique happening.

 

[IF_u_knew]

i do trust the Gospel narratives, penned within decades of Jesus' life and ministry, and in wide circulation while there were yet thousands of living witnesses to His life to read the material and confirm its truthfulness. i trust what it says regarding not only His deeds, but His teachings and claims.

Honestly, I see this as a risky move considering who the "Son of man" (aka the Word) was sold to. The brilliance of G.d is that not only did He put this into the Tanakh in such a precise way that only those truly seeking Him for who He is could see it, but He put it quite bluntly into the NT as well. Read the following passage...

Matthew 17: 1-13 (in fact, the last book of Malachi.. chapter 4.. is where this is spoken of.. considering no one listened and instead fell for the paganistic idol worship, no doubt G.d kept His promise and what we are under, my friends, is the curse).

And then, we are also told in the numerous betrayal scenes that the Word was sold out to the Scribes (you are aware of who the Scribes were and what it was they did, correct?). We were blatantly warned over and over.. and then to say that the story that is accepted in the NT is not hellenistic in its construction is to have blindly believed what is written before you. It is VERY MUCH hellenistic in nature.This story of Jesus (minus the words) is straight from the Egyptian culture; accepted by the Greeks and then adapted into Roman mythology. These 3 "kingdoms" were pretty much interconnected. The Truth, that is G.d, is not found within the pages of the Bible. One can find confirmation, but what is it that we are trusting? Man or G.d? I can easily tell you what it is G.d requires of us and I knew it BEFORE He brought me to the Tanakh. That was just the place He confirmed it and then expounds on it.. only on a deeper level than the surface that most are only willing to look at.

You trust man far too much as do many.. that is what is so scary. I see quite clearly that the tares will be gathered first and how do you think He will go about doing this? By saying "all those against me, to the left side"? G.d knows who trusts Him only, but He will expose those who do not trust Him and show them clearly what it is they have been trusting to the point where TRULY, every knee will bow because they will KNOW where they have erred. Just something to consider.. it is all there in front of us despite the "betrayal" thus leaving us w/out excuse to say we did not know.

 

[AK4]

Given the option, well, yeah.. I'd rather pass. When I can predict how a discussion will go, I do not really see the point of carrying it out. :no:

Thats cool. I only addressed it anyway because you said that people who actually have faith will dismiss it.

Oh well

 

[AK4]

Honestly, I see this as a risky move considering who the "Son of man" (aka the Word) was sold to. The brilliance of G.d is that not only did He put this into the Tanakh in such a precise way that only those truly seeking Him for who He is could see it, but He put it quite bluntly into the NT as well. Read the following passage...

Matthew 17: 1-13 (in fact, the last book of Malachi.. chapter 4.. is where this is spoken of.. considering no one listened and instead fell for the paganistic idol worship, no doubt G.d kept His promise and what we are under, my friends, is the curse).

And then, we are also told in the numerous betrayal scenes that the Word was sold out to the Scribes (you are aware of who the Scribes were and what it was they did, correct?). We were blatantly warned over and over.. and then to say that the story that is accepted in the NT is not hellenistic in its construction is to have blindly believed what is written before you. It is VERY MUCH hellenistic in nature.This story of Jesus (minus the words) is straight from the Egyptian culture; accepted by the Greeks and then adapted into Roman mythology. These 3 "kingdoms" were pretty much interconnected. The Truth, that is G.d, is not found within the pages of the Bible. One can find confirmation, but what is it that we are trusting? Man or G.d? I can easily tell you what it is G.d requires of us and I knew it BEFORE He brought me to the Tanakh. That was just the place He confirmed it and then expounds on it.. only on a deeper level than the surface that most are only willing to look at.

You trust man far too much as do many.. that is what is so scary. I see quite clearly that the tares will be gathered first and how do you think He will go about doing this? By saying "all those against me, to the left side"? G.d knows who trusts Him only, but He will expose those who do not trust Him and show them clearly what it is they have been trusting to the point where TRULY, every knee will bow because they will KNOW where they have erred. Just something to consider.. it is all there in front of us despite the "betrayal" thus leaving us w/out excuse to say we did not know.

You assume alot when you think many of us who have faith are believing in "man". You assume that some of us didnt or hasnt thoroughly question all that weve been brainwashed into thinking for most of our lives. Well as for me, YOU ASSUME WRONG, and i dont know all that ayani believes but from what ive read i havent found anything to disagree with yet.

See what you fail to realise and see just like the OT israelites is God never gave them and most of mankind in their time and in this age a heart to BELIEVE AND FOLLOW HIS WAYS. The OT israelites and jews never had spiritual discernment. Thats why the pharisees and scribes in the gopsels didnt understand the teachings of Jesus ----BUT---they did recognise the time and seasons of His coming.

This is not an "attack" as you probably will percieve it to be, but to know who and what is Jesus and who is His Father takes spiritual discernment and you dont have it. The story of Jesus the way youve heard it and been taught in these GARBAGE DUMPS called churches by corrupt, decietful, greedy, evil, pastors and theologians makes the story of Jesus hellenistic and pagan. If you do you homework and find the Truth, the story of Jesus is FAR from pagan and hellenistic. Man cannot get spiritual discernment on their own, it all comes from God, and He gives it to those He chooses. There are many a people who memorise verses and passages but dont have a clue on what the Word says!

 

[IF_u_knew]

There are many a people who memorise verses and passages but dont have a clue on what the Word says!

Well look at that... we agree on something. :yes: Benjamin Franklin said that to have faith, one must shut their eyes to reason. Considering this, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Do you know that Jesus did in fact exist on this earth? What is your reasoning for this if so? And could you have known this had you never read it?
2. Do you know that he was literally crucified unto death, buried, and then on the third day, rose from the dead? How so? And again, could you have known this were it not written?
3. Matthew 27: 52-54 ~ What is your take on this particular passage?
4. Is Jesus the spoken Word of G.d, meaning has He been involved since the beginning of creation?
5. If you perceive the above to be true, do you receive the words in the Tanakh to be literal tellings of events? And if so, what is your basis for trusting a man playing inconsistent mind games with mankind?

There are MANY rationalizations I have made to come to the conclusion that a *great* majority of the NT was not consistent with the Tanakh. I will just point out one of the most obvious which would be the allegory of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son. Using a bit of my thinking ability (not even much need be applied), one can catch the meaning of this allegory to see the warning of the deception in the NT. By sending a ram to Abraham who was going to obediently sacrifice his son, clearly we are being told that G.d would not require the sacrifice, but rather what He was requiring was obedience. And sure enough, this is written clearly throughout the Tanakh.

As far as Hellenistic religions go, are you aware of what exactly it is? Because I would think if you were, then you would not be surprised by my declaration (one I can confidently make after having educated myself to the different religions and cultures of the ancient world). Are you really not aware that the story of Jesus (that being the inclusion of the death, burial, and resurrection) was not a new religious concept? If you are aware and still declaring that this man, Jesus did in fact carry out this well known mythological version of Hellenistic teachings, then you are denying the declarations made by G.d in Isaiah that when He creates, not only is it *as* He declares it, but also that it is distinctively and undeniably Him creating it. Thus, reason for our being able to trust Him... because He has laid out His Laws (including the Natural Laws), and this is what He will be working within.

Do not get me as wrong. Jesus plays into that most undoubtedly, but most overlook how it is exactly that G.d declared it to be so.Too many believe that if they do in fact leap with a faith filled heart, the net will magically materialize out of thin air! Sorry to say.. I took a guided tour of that leap and as I suspected.. there is no magical net. :no:

 

[AK4]

Well look at that... we agree on something. :yes:

Ha i get your meaning and actually i dont really have many memorised i just have key phrases or words that i do have memorised or "pops in my head when talking about the Word". I dont think i have too many verses where i could say it says this at Jer 5:2 such and such. No i dont have that.

Benjamin Franklin said that to have faith, one must shut their eyes to reason.

Ah a smart man he was, but evidently he had no spiritual "knowledge". Even God says mans wisdom is foolishness. Now do we shut our eyes to reason that when God says this that it is true. Hmmmmm

Considering this, how would you answer the following questions?

1. Do you know that Jesus did in fact exist on this earth? What is your reasoning for this if so? And could you have known this had you never read it?

Do we know in fact the prophets lived? How about Moses and all the other patriarchs? Lets make it even better, how about Noah and his family and the ark. Could we have known of this if we never read it? Wheres the ark? It definitely wasnt a global flood, so where is the evidence of a local flood other than in stuff we read in the bible and other books.

2. Do you know that he was literally crucified unto death, buried, and then on the third day, rose from the dead? How so? And again, could you have known this were it not written?

See the thing is---Do you have faith or believe the Word of God and everything in it? (Im not talking bout translations) ----lets just say from Gen to Mal for you. Do you believe or have faith that what is written really happened or just stories cleverly put together by man? But to answer your question, I believe it literally happened because i believe the whole Word of God and all the "references" of it in the "OT". "Is anything to hard for God"? Elijah or was it Elisha brought someone back to life so why is it so difficult to believe the Father did the same for His only begotten? Would we know of this account of Elijah or Elisha if it wasnt written?

Lets say it never literally happened, either way the spiritual meaning of it all shows how great God is. If Jesus and the prophets of old never literally existed, these great writings by "man" and its teachings and implications are astounding...(my thought process got interupted, maybe i finish it in another post)

3. Matthew 27: 52-54 ~ What is your take on this particular passage?

There are two spurious parts in that passage--"and the graves were opened" and "and went"---these two spots dont show up in the earliest manuscripts. But this passage is puzzling though i admit because when you look at the greek words and thier root word it could be said these saints who arose didnt happen literally but that instead of literally coming "out of the grave" it could be said that these saint came to memory or remembrance "appearing" to many "in the holy city". I thought on this passage awhile back but i havent thought on it awhile. Maybe i will start a new thread on this and see what others are thinking to spark up my thought on it again.

The last part is pretty self explanatory, if Jesus literally existed truly He is the Son of God. (oh earthquake does have a spiritual meaning to it where this may not of been a literal earthquake) If He didnt literally exist, it has the meaning of what God is going to for His children in that they will be like the whole concept of what Jesus was/is. So now you may think well now you are worshipping a man, but really would it be? If He never literally existed we would be worshipping something that the whole Word of God alludes to, a God who emptied Himself to be like His creation to teach them how to truly worship Him in spirit and truth and to show even though we die He, leading by example will die and show that He will bring us all back to life with a better more glorious immortal body. I could go on and on with scripture to back it up but this is already getting too long

4. Is Jesus the spoken Word of G.d, meaning has He been involved since the beginning of creation?

Yes, He is and He is the creator "slain from the foundation of the world" and the one spoken of also in proverbs 26 (i think thats where it is). ive been comtemplating restating that one post i was going to post to you in another thread, but i am being held back right now. I will give this major major major (did I say major?) truth---If you can truly believe this scripture then you can find who and what is Jesus and who is His Father----

Joh 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh 5:37 -And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 6:46 - Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
But then it still isnt that easy because you have to distinguish when they are talking of the Father (the invisible) and when it is talking of Jesus/Jehovah. (And no there is no trinity)

5. If you perceive the above to be true, do you receive the words in the Tanakh to be literal tellings of events? And if so, what is your basis for trusting a man playing inconsistent mind games with mankind?

I believe they are, but also know that if they are literal happenings they have spiritual meanings, if not that still doesnt take away the spiritual meanings. I definitely dont see mind games being played. It is humanity with their "wisdom" twisting and distorting and doing the mind games, but God purposed this because like i posted earlier He didnt put "a heart in them to believe and follow His ways". But He does give it to some.

I will have to comment on the rest of your post later, and sorry i was being brief in those answers because of time and space

 

[IF_u_knew]

I will have to comment on the rest of your post later, and sorry i was being brief in those answers because of time and space

Please, do not dare say you are sorry; though surely you can look at your answers (well, more like questions turned around & pointed back at me ) and see why I no longer view Jesus, or the whole of the Bible for that matter, the way I once did. Still, you took the time to acknowledge them which does mean a lot to me. Thank you.

I do agree that man's wisdom is foolish, which has a lot to do why I always questioned the Bible. In fact, when I was in high school, one of the questions that I asked a particularly fanatic Christian teacher was why it is that when the Bible admits that man's wisdom is foolish, we do not question the writings in it. I will *never* forget that day. I was thoroughly treated, well, as a dog would be treated by its master for asking what honestly was a valid question.

I can pretty much sum up the answer to all the questions you asked me by saying this; that I do not take the Tanakh as a literal account of events. I take what I see as allegories. One thing that people do not understand by my declaration as such, is why on earth I would subscribe to something when I do not believe the accounts that are written therein. That answer is simple. It is the brilliant way that it was written that only opens up what it is behind the words when one acknowledges that, indeed, man's knowledge/wisdom is foolish. The Tanakh is very much a door in which behind it lies very valuable treasures. Man is foolish to believe that the key to those valued treasures would be lying on the door mat in front of that door, no?

I do not believe that Moses literally stood on top of mountain and received the tablets of stone written by the literal finger of G.d. I know that this is represtentative a very deep Truth. I do not believe that Noah sent out a raven and a dove from the ark in the way that it is written and no, I do not believe in a literal universal flood as it is written. I know these are representing Truths about the creation process that is ongoing as it is said to be in Isaiah and which Jesus himself acknowledged.

So, the more I *hear* that voice that is so intimate and resting behind the words that we see, the more I start to understand the NT and the test in which it truly is. Once I showed myself willing to take this test despite the frightening aspects of it, before I had even realized it, not only had I been given the key, but had already opened the lock of the door that was not allowing me to see the DEPTH and the TRUTH that is in the Tanakh.

I do not have faith in the Word of G.d. I am faithful to G.d because I know His Word and His Word does in fact exist beyond the pages of the Bible. Jesus does not. Jesus had a beginning and Jesus had an end; the Word of the LORD is everlasting.. **IT** is the beginning and **IT** is the end. This is indeed acknowledged in John (which, in all honesty, had to have been written by a female, no?) and the Word indeed rests behind the words of Jesus (save a few places). But to believe a man is responsible and can be the Word of the LORD is to shut your eyes to Reason and to blindly believe what you yourself admit is foolish... the wisdom of man. :yes:

 

[AK4]

Please, do not dare say you are sorry; though surely you can look at your answers (well, more like questions turned around & pointed back at me ) and see why I no longer view Jesus, or the whole of the Bible for that matter, the way I once did. Still, you took the time to acknowledge them which does mean a lot to me. Thank you.

I do agree that man's wisdom is foolish, which has a lot to do why I always questioned the Bible. In fact, when I was in high school, one of the questions that I asked a particularly fanatic Christian teacher was why it is that when the Bible admits that man's wisdom is foolish, we do not question the writings in it. I will *never* forget that day. I was thoroughly treated, well, as a dog would be treated by its master for asking what honestly was a valid question.

I can pretty much sum up the answer to all the questions you asked me by saying this; that I do not take the Tanakh as a literal account of events. I take what I see as allegories. One thing that people do not understand by my declaration as such, is why on earth I would subscribe to something when I do not believe the accounts that are written therein. That answer is simple. It is the brilliant way that it was written that only opens up what it is behind the words when one acknowledges that, indeed, man's knowledge/wisdom is foolish. The Tanakh is very much a door in which behind it lies very valuable treasures. Man is foolish to believe that the key to those valued treasures would be lying on the door mat in front of that door, no?

I do not believe that Moses literally stood on top of mountain and received the tablets of stone written by the literal finger of G.d. I know that this is represtentative a very deep Truth. I do not believe that Noah sent out a raven and a dove from the ark in the way that it is written and no, I do not believe in a literal universal flood as it is written. I know these are representing Truths about the creation process that is ongoing as it is said to be in Isaiah and which Jesus himself acknowledged.

So, the more I *hear* that voice that is so intimate and resting behind the words that we see, the more I start to understand the NT and the test in which it truly is. Once I showed myself willing to take this test despite the frightening aspects of it, before I had even realized it, not only had I been given the key, but had already opened the lock of the door that was not allowing me to see the DEPTH and the TRUTH that is in the Tanakh.

I do not have faith in the Word of G.d. I am faithful to G.d because I know His Word and His Word does in fact exist beyond the pages of the Bible. Jesus does not. Jesus had a beginning and Jesus had an end; the Word of the LORD is everlasting.. **IT** is the beginning and **IT** is the end. This is indeed acknowledged in John (which, in all honesty, had to have been written by a female, no?) and the Word indeed rests behind the words of Jesus (save a few places). But to believe a man is responsible and can be the Word of the LORD is to shut your eyes to Reason and to blindly believe what you yourself admit is foolish... the wisdom of man. :yes:

Just a quick response to this---

You say you see it allegorically, i say spiritually i see It. I think theres a giant difference between the two but oh well. You are at least somewhat on the right path, but anyway

So in the tanach when all those people claim to "see" a man and call Him God, you still take this allegorically right? So okay then they didnt literally see or talk to this "man" it was an allegory of God talking or people seeing God----are you ready for this----As a MAN.

You have Moses, Abram, Isaac ,Jacob, Manoah, his wife, Sarah who had seen a man and said they had seen God.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Just a quick response to this---

You say you see it allegorically, i say spiritually i see It. I think theres a giant difference between the two but oh well. You are at least somewhat on the right path, but anyway

So in the tanach when all those people claim to "see" a man and call Him God, you still take this allegorically right? So okay then they didnt literally see or talk to this "man" it was an allegory of God talking or people seeing God----are you ready for this----As a MAN.

You have Moses, Abram, Isaac ,Jacob, Manoah, his wife, Sarah who had seen a man and said they had seen God.

It is all a matter of the difference of our perspectives. The difference is found in Daniel.. iron and clay. Somewhere in there one finds the key perspective.

As for a G.d being represented through a man... interesting thing I saw here lately. I offer up not my speculation, but am curious if what I think can be seen by another.
I saw something quite interesting in Jeremiah 33, particularly verses 14 on. There is rather an interesting detail in the midst there that I understood further after reading Deut. 17. Perhaps it will be that when people start to understand the Messiah, they will no longer see G.d through a man.

 

[ayani]

well, what is written as that the Messiah will be a light to the nations, sent uniquely by God to draw the peoples to Himself, and save and bless them.

the Samaritan woman described Messiah as "the one who will teach us all things, and save the world". she understood Messiah to be God-sent, and worth listening to.

for anyone who knows Him and has decided to follow Him, He is central. not everyone talks about Him in the same way, as where we've come from before we met Him will be different. an ex-drug addict who came to Christ may emphasize that our own efforts are powerless to save us from sin, hence His necessity. a former Hindu may emphasize the importance of grace, and not relying on one's good works to get one nearer to God, and draw parallels between the Hindu idea of the avatar and the person of Jesus as the Son of God, and Immanuel.

we can not see God. we can have faith in Him, and seek Him, but He's unseen and almighty. can we know God personally? through Someone He sends to show us what He is like, speak His words, do His works, and through Himself offer us a relationship to the God who sent Him, yes.

in Messiah we are not meant to see only a person like ourselves, for if Messiah is just like us, then what's the point in knowing Him? one might as well get acquainted with one's mail man, and seek to know God through Him. what makes Messiah unique, is what He brings- God's presence, kingdom, power, forgiveness, love, and law in Himself. to whom else shall we go?

It is all a matter of the difference of our perspectives. The difference is found in Daniel.. iron and clay. Somewhere in there one finds the key perspective.

As for a G.d being represented through a man... interesting thing I saw here lately. I offer up not my speculation, but am curious if what I think can be seen by another.
I saw something quite interesting in Jeremiah 33, particularly verses 14 on. There is rather an interesting detail in the midst there that I understood further after reading Deut. 17. Perhaps it will be that when people start to understand the Messiah, they will no longer see G.d through a man.

 

[IF_u_knew]

well, what is written as that the Messiah will be a light to the nations, sent uniquely by God to draw the peoples to Himself, and save and bless them.

the Samaritan woman described Messiah as "the one who will teach us all things, and save the world". she understood Messiah to be God-sent, and worth listening to.

for anyone who knows Him and has decided to follow Him, He is central. not everyone talks about Him in the same way, as where we've come from before we met Him will be different. an ex-drug addict who came to Christ may emphasize that our own efforts are powerless to save us from sin, hence His necessity. a former Hindu may emphasize the importance of grace, and not relying on one's good works to get one nearer to God, and draw parallels between the Hindu idea of the avatar and the person of Jesus as the Son of God, and Immanuel.

we can not see God. we can have faith in Him, and seek Him, but He's unseen and almighty. can we know God personally? through Someone He sends to show us what He is like, speak His words, do His works, and through Himself offer us a relationship to the God who sent Him, yes.

in Messiah we are not meant to see only a person like ourselves, for if Messiah is just like us, then what's the point in knowing Him? one might as well get acquainted with one's mail man, and seek to know God through Him. what makes Messiah unique, is what He brings- God's presence, kingdom, power, forgiveness, love, and law in Himself. to whom else shall we go?

So, is your salvation reliant on the literal existence of a man named Jesus? And do you think that he TRULY, the man jesus that is, died, was buried, and resurrected again after 3 days and this is your hope of salvation? If one has to hope for salvation, is it not safe to say that they are indeed, not saved?

 

[ayani]

**nods** my salvation is certainly reliant on Him, and His realness.

yes, i truly believe that this man died, was buried, and raised from the dead by God's loving power three days later. He lives, that we may live, too.

apart from Him, there is no way to be made whole spiritually. we can not complete ourselves- only God's grace can do that. and only in His unique Son, being One with Him, can we come to know God personally, and be reconciled to Him.

salvation in Him is not simply hoped for, but promised and assured. as He is risen from the dead and as He did this not only for Himself, but for all who believe in Him, there's a promise not only of new spiritual life, but eternal life. too often, i feel Christians emphasize the eternal life part, and forget about the spiritual fruits of discipleship to be manifested and cultivated joyfully here on earth.

So, is your salvation reliant on the literal existence of a man named Jesus? And do you think that he TRULY, the man jesus that is, died, was buried, and resurrected again after 3 days and this is your hope of salvation? If one has to hope for salvation, is it not safe to say that they are indeed, not saved?

 

[herushura]

1. Do you know that Jesus did in fact exist on this earth? What is your reasoning for this if so? And could you have known this had you never read it?
2. Do you know that he was literally crucified unto death, buried, and then on the third day, rose from the dead? How so? And again, could you have known this were it not written?
3. Matthew 27: 52-54 ~ What is your take on this particular passage?
4. Is Jesus the spoken Word of G.d, meaning has He been involved since the beginning of creation?
5. If you perceive the above to be true, do you receive the words in the Tanakh to be literal tellings of events? And if so, what is your basis for trusting a man playing inconsistent mind games with mankind?

1. Caesarion, the last pharoah of egypt, and the hier of Rome. excaped egypt as his mother was afraid of his safety, he came to palistine. Caesarion was to belived to be the son of Isis, or "Esse" meaning son of isis. Caesarion royal titles include
son of god, "Heir of the "Heir of the God who saves" God who Saves, Joshua/jesus.
He was king of Kings because his mother was queen of egypt, and father ruler of rome, thus he became king of both kingdoms or king of kings, he was also called
the living image of Amen. belived to be god incarnated.

(Rev 3:14) "To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this:

2. Book of Mark does not state that he was on the cross for 3 days, but only less then a day, caeserion who was very rich, most likely survived this, he created a new religion to transform the roman empire into a holy empire.

magda-elene, or S-elene, Caeserions half sister. Selene was one of a twin, her brother was called didymus. didymus means twin. arabic "t'oma" also signifies "twin".

3. He was on the cross, and physiclly survived.

4. Spoken word of the Amen, egyptian believed the Pharoah spoke the word of god or amen.

5. real event, but the biblical timeline is completetly messed up, so matching of historic to biblical people is disrupted.