Resurrection of the dead

Hopefully good debating points can be gained from this discussion.

First, let me explain how I read the text of scripture about the resurrection. There is a need to differentiate between Jesus the man and "the body of Christ". Which was resurrected?

Read Matthew 11:4-5 " Go and show John again those things ye do hear and see; The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection? Instead, there is what was called "a second death", and not a second coming. For those who were raised-up, it was impossible for them to suffer a second death, for they were "in Christ", exalted, as at the beginning when their place and name were selected as the "elect" and "Gods chosen people" out of all the tribes of Israel. Note that it was not the Jews of Judah tribe which were the "elect" chosen to be priests, but that positioning of inheritance went forward in name of Levi, and that only the Levitical family was covenanted as "anointed" to be priests forever in Israel and their place at Jerusalem restored as seen when Christ cast the demons out and declared to the people, "the kingdom of heaven is come unto you".

How then did things become so confusing and taken out of Judaism?

You raise some good questions here. And, I don't know that I want to debate any of your points. Rather, let's see if we can sharpen one another's understanding.

Your post is like a well stocked buffet.

Where does one start? You 've got some good Christianity vs Judaism stuff here.
The role of the Levites looks tempting.
But since you gave the topic resurrection of the dead. Let's chew on it.

First, let me explain how I read the text of scripture about the resurrection. There is a need to differentiate between Jesus the man and "the body of Christ". Which was resurrected?

Click to expand...

The body of Christ is generally a term used to designate the church in the Christian terminology. The literal physical body of Jesus the CHrist is another matter. The Christ in Jesus' name denotes his annointing. If it is extended to include Messiah it is more like the one annointed above all.
ANd, of course all of Christianity and its derivatives hinges upon whether or not Jesus did actually arise fromthe dead. In other words, did he have the power to defeat death in his own life, and therefore have authority to extend that power to all on conditions he set forth?
So the differentation you speak of is, in my mind at least, a separation of the flesh of individual's from the corporate idea of a resurrection of a group of believers at some other time, previous or later.
Which leads us to your next quote

Read Matthew 11:4-5 " Go and show John again those things ye do hear and see; The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Click to expand...

The raising of the dead here is probably a reference to what happened to Lazarus. And, I would assume that if Jesus did that, it wouldn't be necessary to record all other similar events during the life of his minsitry. When the miracle is of that magnitude there's no need to pile up a whole lot of evidence. If a person won't believe the first report they probably won't believe the others.
I think that differentation should answer your following quote.

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection? Instead, there is what was called "a second death", and not a second coming.

Click to expand...

So, looking at your next morsel from the buffet we bite on this

For those who were raised-up, it was impossible for them to suffer a second death, for they were "in Christ", exalted, as at the beginning when their place and name were selected as the "elect" and "Gods chosen people" out of all the tribes of Israel. Note that it was not the Jews of Judah tribe which were the "elect" chosen to be priests, but that positioning of inheritance went forward in name of Levi, and that only the Levitical family was covenanted as "anointed" to be priests forever in Israel and their place at Jerusalem restored as seen when Christ cast the demons out and declared to the people, "the kingdom of heaven is come unto you".

How then did things become so confusing and taken out of Judaism?

Click to expand...

That's more than I can chew on right now because of time. But, we can get into that unfinished dessert later if you like.

BenJosh

I suppose we can chew and spit at the same time.

How do you read Jesus as being "sent"? Supernatural birth or through his firstborn status in Levitical heritage? "What was 'conceived' in Mary was of the holy spirit."

Would you agree that the term "conceived" has its meaning in God's separating the Levites to be his inheritance and he theirs? This, at the beginning of Israel as a nation.

Or, you can believe that an invisible god impregnated Mary with invisible sperm, but would that not have created an invisible Jesus?

I look forward to your comments.

HI Energize,

I know you've been asked before, but I've just gotta' bite . . . . are yout that drum beating bunny?

Now, that that's out of the way. . . . . on to more serious things.

energize said:

How do you read Jesus as being "sent"?

Click to expand...

Sent as an immortal spirit. That is what we all are.

Supernatural birth or through his firstborn status in Levitical heritage?

Click to expand...

Do you place any stock in the scriptures? Can't really answer this question to your satisfaction unless you give it at least some merit.
Or do you accept the Torah, etc. but not the Brit hadashah New Testament?

I need to know which park you play in if you're going to let me in on a level field.

"What was 'conceived' in Mary was of the holy spirit." Would you agree that the term "conceived" has its meaning in God's separating the Levites to be his inheritance and he theirs? This, at the beginning of Israel as a nation.

Click to expand...

I have great respect for the separating of the Levitical firstborn tribe. Jesus' lineage is not from Levi and this is stated in the NT.

Or, you can believe that an invisible god impregnated Mary with invisible sperm, but would that not have created an invisible Jesus?

Click to expand...

The virgin birth is in the realm of what many people call miraculous.

The impregnation of Mary is part of the intelligent design scenario. This concerns the interaction of spirit and matter which we are all comprised of.

You have asked some very deep questions and they won't be answered in drive by posts.

Looking forward to you r comments as well. BenJosh

energize said:

Hopefully good debating points can be gained from this discussion.

First, let me explain how I read the text of scripture about the resurrection. There is a need to differentiate between Jesus the man and "the body of Christ". Which was resurrected?

Read Matthew 11:4-5 " Go and show John again those things ye do hear and see; The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection? Instead, there is what was called "a second death", and not a second coming. For those who were raised-up, it was impossible for them to suffer a second death, for they were "in Christ", exalted, as at the beginning when their place and name were selected as the "elect" and "Gods chosen people" out of all the tribes of Israel. Note that it was not the Jews of Judah tribe which were the "elect" chosen to be priests, but that positioning of inheritance went forward in name of Levi, and that only the Levitical family was covenanted as "anointed" to be priests forever in Israel and their place at Jerusalem restored as seen when Christ cast the demons out and declared to the people, "the kingdom of heaven is come unto you".

How then did things become so confusing and taken out of Judaism?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's confusing, although, I'm not sure who will feel the same way that I do...

Jesus Christ performed miracles such as raising the dead in LIFE because of the Holy Spirit within him. He was sent by God to show us HOW to live and WHAT we would be able to do through his death and resurrection when we accept HIM. Healing, teaching, raising from the dead, casting out demons...these were his works...this was GOD working directly through him...showing us what's possible IN GOD.

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection?

I believe these indivudals were brought back from the dead by Jesus to SHOW others the Glory of God...to SHOW people while he was living what we would be able to do through HIS death and resurrection. Does that make any sense?

Jesus was also sent to shed his Blood for us...HIS RESURRECTION made God's plan for our salvation complete. Jesus didn't resurrect MASSES of people prior to His own death and resurrection...and for those that he DID resurrect, he did so to SHOW us the Glory of GOD. And through HIS resurrection...and belief in him...we actually have the SAME GOD...the SAME abilities within US to walk on water, cast out demons, heal...raise the dead, etc.

Jesus was our living, breathing instructional manual...and now he's like the Great Spiritual Instructional manual:162:

Truly, as far as the "elect" is concerned...I let God worry about that. He promised me salvation when I believe in Jesus Christ....and I do...

Jesus told us that we would do HIS works but also GREATER works. I think collectively, what we lack is the faith to fully grasp how awesome that really is.

And yet again...Dawn has probably failed to answer any of the questions that were asked by the original poster...:jam: I rock, don't I?

Hi BenJosh

So, you think we're immortal spirits? I couldn't disagree with you more. We are but dust in the wind, as the song says.

Do I place any stock in the scriptures? Yes. The story is Jewish and within that context of people should the story be examined. Jesus was a Jew but he was also a Levite priest, just as his cousin John the Baptist. Do you understand the Levite priesthood? That the firstborn sons were dedicated to God? That the priesthood presents "the only begotton son" emphasing the Levite election as priests?

I play in both ball parks of KJV. Are you Jewish or other? You are aware I'm an Atheist?

Where in NT have you found that Jesus was not in lineaged Levites?

Aaha, you mentioned Intelligent Design, that invented psycho-science developed in the mind of evangelicals so as to deceive the public. You consider that to be a science? I consider it as BS. Are you a card carrying member of the Christian Right?

If your mind is not conditioned to only quote scripture then we can discuss more clearly the meaning of this story in its form. I don't mind quotes but parroting without comprehension is boring. And I'm sure we can incease one anothers knowledge concerning "the mysteries" of the kingdom of heaven.

Dawny

You are understanding the resurrection of the dead as a physical event of embodied corpses coming back to life. I don't read the story in that vein, and see "exaltation" as being the resurrection. What was involved with being exalted "up on high"? It implied an honor system which status was "above" every other tribal name in Israel. Thus the priesthood of anointed Levites named were above the other tribal names and seen as the "light" unto the nations-tribes of Israel. As teachers in Israel, the Levite priests were those who guided the path to righteousness. The entire body of priests are called "anointed" meaning, "the body of Christ". And it is this body which was "raised up" out of their dead state not to suffer a second death. The figures of speech used in expression and symbols of references are seen in the storylines. Jesus spoke in parables so that the multitude of people would not understand. Doesn't make sense does it? Not until you understand why he used parables in the first place.

HI, Energize,

Thanks for the very interesting reply.

Now, that I know your ball park I know where to hit. Well, not hit. I know where to buy the hotdogs and I"ll buy you one so we can sit down and talk as friends.

You are kind of unique. An atheist who puts stock in the Old and New Testament. Your references to the Levites made me wonder if your a Messianic Jewish believer, as in Jewish roots of Christianity.

You said,

So, you think we're immortal spirits? I couldn't disagree with you more. We are but dust in the wind, as the song says.

Click to expand...

Hey, I identify with the song. But I don't identify with a separation of the dust with the wind of immortal spirit that blows it around. You identify with the dust but not the wind.

I am dust but I know what moves me.

You asked

Do you understand the Levite priesthood? That the firstborn sons were dedicated to God?

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this but am not sure I understand fully what you mean by the following

That the priesthood presents "the only begotton son" emphasing the Levite election as priests?

Click to expand...

Please enlighten me.

Then you asked.

Are you Jewish or other?

Click to expand...

I am other. I am Ephriamite.


You also asked a question that I appreciate. And, I will tell you why I appreciate it. Our posts can actually be an exchange of information that helps us both grow in our understanding of things. Some of the post exchanges I've participated in were more like drive bys. Somebody spouts something they know absolutely nothing about. I try to engage them in a reasonable conversation and they only come back to fire a couple of shots and run on to the next block. . where they do the same thing to somebody else.

So, here is your appreciated question.

Where in NT have you found that Jesus was not in lineaged Levites?

Click to expand...

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood, (for under
it the people received the law,)
what further need was there that
another priest should rise after the
order of Melchizedek, and not be
called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being
changed, there is made of necessity
a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things
are spoken pertaineth to another
tribe, of which no man gave attendance
at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord
sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning
priesthood.

In the following quote I think you are almost jumping to a stereotyping conclusion about me because I mentioned intelligent design.

Aaha, you mentioned Intelligent Design, that invented psycho-science developed in the mind of evangelicals so as to deceive the public.You consider that to be a science? I consider it as BS. Are you a card carrying member of the Christian Right?

Click to expand...

I am not a card carrying member of the Christian Right. Nor do I think the Christian Right has been deceiving by their development of it. Intelligent design has arisen from science and many Christians are trying to ride it for their agenda.

The truth of the horse they're riding doesn't make it their horse.

Like your focus on the dust and not the wind. . . . . I think that in Intelligent Design you see the Christian Right riding the horse but you don't check the brand on the horse. It just might be stolen , pardner !

My mind is not conditioned to only quote scripture and I think you'll find that I've emptied my mind shop of almost all the parrots, especially the ones the religious institutions sent. I used to have a bunch of them and I sent them away. Not because they were boring. . . . they were stupid and argued with each other a lot. The only parrots I have left are more mediatative and calm.

I look forward to your reply.

BenJosh

This one is going right on over my red head but I wanted to say frubals to you both for one interesting thread...

Hi Dawny

hang in there Dawny, it gets easier as we string things along.

BenJosh

Ephriamite huh? Are you registered with the American "Kennel" club?

Ok, let's examine the order of Melchezedec. It began with King Mel of Salem, now called Jerusalem; whereof Jesus stated to the Pharisees, "before Abraham, I am". I read this as Jesus saying his priestly authority was before the days of Abraham, and yet he was after the order of Aaron. Just as he was before John the Baptist in the original priesthood but waited after John in his preaching ministry. Jesus ministry didn't fully begin until after the death of John.

So how does that change the covenant God made with Abraham concerning circumcision as the "sign" of loyalty? Or the commandments given by Moses? Nothing changed as authority in the priesthood merely passed through from the order of Melchezedec to Aaron in family name of Levites. And Levi name became "Gods chosen people" and anointed to be the "elect" out of all the tribes of Israel. God made the priestly covenant with Levi as stated in Malachi. Jesus changed nothing concerning covenants and laws. Also, the Levites as preists were separated from the other tribes and given no inheritance, for their inheritance was God and they Gods inheritance. Do you have a different interpretation? There was a time when I thought law and covenants were abolished due to the priesthood beginning before days of Abraham, but that stickler of circumcision became quite obviously a covenant instilled throughout the generations of Israel. There is no getting around that "cutting-off" of the flesh, symbolizing how those not circumcised were cut off from the house of Abraham.

I'll agree with you about that horse (of a different color).

I'll stick with my "dust in the wind" belief as I am now atheist. My atheism simple means that I do not believe the same things that you yourself believe. Besides, Jesus wasn't sent to me and the bible is record of Israeli events in their generations. So, I'm satisfied being who I am.

I'm not understanding how you conclude that ID originated out of science. Unless what you can't explain you somehow attribute to a higher source than man, "a god". You'll have to enlighten me on that part of your thinking.

Glad to hear your not a parrot. Or..a card carrying member of the CR. My stomach turns every time I see Jerry Falwell on a "holyroller" TV episode. He is given much to much airtime on news broadcasts imo.

What other tribe did not give attendance at the altar? Tribe of Rueben? Esau? Joseph? Dan? Sioux per chance?

Happy New Year !

Energize,

Intelligent design began in science because the more advanced science got the more they ran into a mystical connection with religions of the East. One of the most well known books influencing physicists is The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra. Another influence in the mind/body science field is Candace Pert (Molecules of Emotion), also in Mind/Body medicine there's Deepok Chopra (Quantam Healing)
I believe that CR takes the mystical connection parallells (which is acknowldegment of mystery with Easterm Mysticism) and takes off with ID thinking the references to God/mystery is their creationist idea of God. But the mind/body science and quantam physics folks, while acknowledging mystery, attribute intelligence without endorsing a particular religion.
In the realm of psychology, Micheal Gurian is a good example of this. In his book, The Soul of a Child, Gurian is psychologist, social scientist, and religionist without endorsing or condemning any religion. The end product is a great book full of insights about the relationship of God and science. Yet, it is evolutionist and, for me anyway, rings true in my human experience.

This is one form of ID. The CR would not touch this book with a ten foot pole, but it is part of the broader influx of Eastern mysticism into science.

It's exciting to me.
Enlightening and does not fit well with those parrots you were talking about. You definitely have to engage your intellect to follow where this all goes.

BenJosh

Are you saying that science and its ID proposal has lost its purpose and strayed into the imagination of Christianity, creating a mystical force attributed to/as a God?

Are you tying this ID into the picture of Levites and resurrection, or something else? I need to read about ID for sure. Up to this point all I've heard about ID is from the evangelical conservative Right, and all they say is that "its Gods design", meaning the God of Israel and which I read and understand as one of the pagan gods of those times people were in.

HI Energize,

Good to hear from you. You asked.

energize said:

Are you saying that science and its ID proposal has lost its purpose and strayed into the imagination of Christianity, creating a mystical force attributed to/as a God?

Click to expand...

I don't know that ID ever had a purpose. I think it arose out of scientific observation. It was the result of credibile scientfic experimentation in different fields. Usually in science discoveries made in research labs move to development, packaging and marketing to the public.

Scientists find the what.

And their finding it, the what is never totally separated from the why (what's the application?)

The why/application may be a combination of things.

1. The praise of our peers. (So the application is in publishing a paper for review and praise. Testing in the scientific society laboratory)

2. Can the what be applied in the marketplace (pharmeceuticals, aeronautics, medicene, industry etc. sell books to higher education, religion)?

ID is one of those scientific discoveries that does not fit well in the regular scheme of things because it is not tangible. It did not come from one single lab. ID is a theory that some scientists believe is applicable in the context of other theories. So its difficult to market theory.

Religion has traditionally held the large marketshare in the realm of mystical theory. In fact, it is said that Descartes wanted cadavers for disection for understanding human anatomy. The Pope said he couldn't have them because the church had knowledge about death and the soul, therefore the bodies were theirs. A deal was struck that has been the position of science and religion for centuries. The church gets the realm of soul matters but science can have matter matters.

With ID, I think what we are seeing now is the marketing of information. The CR might see it as their horse. The scientists who see ID do not have any control over the application of ID. They observed and reported it. They have the conviction it is correct and this may lead them into the religous marketplace. In other words, any number of religious organizations may court them to meet their needs. And, if there's a market where these scientists can get money and prestige they may attach to particular religious groups or ideologies. Or they may make statements that are then mis-applied.
What ever the case, those within the scientific community embracing ID are courageous to take a stand on what they've observed. When I see I.D. opposed in education , like the Dover case, I don't think the people involved realize that the I.D. horse may very well be a whole herd of wild horses that nobody owns. They were discovered in the scientists' labs and now they're wild in the streets. So, grab a saddle and see if we can catch us one.

You also said,

Are you tying this ID into the picture of Levites and resurrection, or something else? I need to read about ID for sure. Up to this point all I've heard about ID is from the evangelical conservative Right, and all they say is that "its Gods design", meaning the God of Israel and which I read and understand as one of the pagan gods of those times people were in.

Click to expand...

Metaphysically I would say that, yes . . . . . Intelligent Design is mystically the breakthrough of the connection between spirit and matter. Not that scientists understand it . . . . . . . but that their observations have led them into a realm beyond physical sense (solid matter empiricism).
That is what resurrection is about. Spirit, said to be in matter; triumphing over matter and entropy/sin.
And, you are insightful in your observations about firstborn Levite tribes. The Levites were made the least among all the tribes. All their possessions were used up in the 40 years of wilderness wanderings. The Levites gave all their possessions and had none. They were to be totally dependent on the other tribes.
They were made the least by design. Though Jesus was not a Levite (as discussed in a previous thread) he did live out a firstborn kind of life. He owned nothing but a few clothes and his own body. And, his own body was ultimately the central focus of his life and the basis of the Christian religion.
If Jesus did not make this permanent spirit matter bonding there is no reason for his life or the claims that are made by others about it. Did Jesus overcome entropy and in fact have such power that his laying down of his life was totally voluntary? In other words, did he at that time have power over death, but like a true Levite said, this body itself is not even my possession it is the Fathers so I give it up to HIs will?
And, in this did he become the firstborn of all creation?

My understanding of ID is that some within science have come to the point that the expotentially complex life forms observed witness against the models of randomness and chaos they formerly embraced. This has led some to consider the religious dimensions (primarily Easterm mysticism) that they never did before.

Thanks for participating in this thread. I get good mental exercise because your non=parroting questions stimulate me to dig deep.

BenJoshl

You assume that Jesus has Mary's DNA or that it actually matters "how" Jesus was concieved.

energize said:

How do you read Jesus as being "sent"? Supernatural birth or through his firstborn status in Levitical heritage? "What was 'conceived' in Mary was of the holy spirit."

Click to expand...

energize said:

Hopefully good debating points can be gained from this discussion.

First, let me explain how I read the text of scripture about the resurrection. There is a need to differentiate between Jesus the man and "the body of Christ". Which was resurrected?

Read Matthew 11:4-5 " Go and show John again those things ye do hear and see; The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection? Instead, there is what was called "a second death", and not a second coming. For those who were raised-up, it was impossible for them to suffer a second death, for they were "in Christ", exalted, as at the beginning when their place and name were selected as the "elect" and "Gods chosen people" out of all the tribes of Israel. Note that it was not the Jews of Judah tribe which were the "elect" chosen to be priests, but that positioning of inheritance went forward in name of Levi, and that only the Levitical family was covenanted as "anointed" to be priests forever in Israel and their place at Jerusalem restored as seen when Christ cast the demons out and declared to the people, "the kingdom of heaven is come unto you".

How then did things become so confusing and taken out of Judaism?

Click to expand...

in an attempt to convince Jews that he was the Moshiach ben David, and in an attempt to reconcile the fact that the mission of the jewish messiah was not fulfilled, early founders of the christian faith had to say that jesus was coming back to do all the things that were never accomplished in his lifetime.

Benjosh

Ok, here's what I think. I think the many frustrated scientists having no explaination for the unexplained are allowing themselves to be pushed into a "Intelligent Design" belief created by the CR. The Christian Right of course is pushing their form of the one God in three entities. Many pressure points are utilized by the CR, one such is funding and career motivation.

However, let us get back to the biblical story and its purpose in expounding on the resurrection of the dead. We both agree ( I think ) that the body of Christ was the priesthood members in disciples and apostles, and not the one man Jesus. (Although Jesus was himself a member of that body called "Christ") You disagree that that body was Levite in origin or that in days of Jesus he was not raising up again that specific body to overpower the Pharisees and rule as the only priests again at Jerusalem? (as in days of King David)

Reading that the NT bible scriptures themselves state it is impossible that flesh and blood can enter into the kingdom of heaven, we must look at "the body" in another form of it's being raised-up, and exalted, while the man Jesus was still alive. (Matthew 11:5) I find the only "body" that fits into that storyline is Levite; even though there is mention of the priestly cast originating from King and Priest Melchezedec. The line of priests simply flow through to Aaron and Moses and onward throughout the generations of Israel.

Let's look at what happened to the Levitical priesthood. The tribe of Judah(Jews) at Jerusalem cast away the Levites and brought in new priests who were unlearned and not anointed to that position. What happened next? Chaos between Jews who were divided on the matter. For some thought one way and some thought another way. And Malachi seems to express it best: "Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously, every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers." (Malachi 2:10) Herein we see contentions and arguments concerning the covenant God made with Levi. (Verse 11), "Judah hath dealt treacherously and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a foreign god." Here we see the story of how King Rehoboam brought in other non-anointed priests which were considered as an abomination to the Lord God. For those brought in were not God's inheritance as stated in record of election of Levites as the chosen priests. So what does Jesus do when he begins his ministry? He resurrects that body of Levites which were as "dead" and raises them up "not to suffer death a second time". And here is where many Christians are confusing a second coming of Christ the man, and their own resurrection in an afterlife that is not promised. (Ezekiel) The false prophets are the originators of a promise of life that God had not promised or spoken as being truth. Physical "Life" was granted to the righteous who obeyed their laws of commandments and that "life" was to be lived in Israel on earth; but the false prophets were promising life as a "gift", much like the TV evangelists are seen doing today. (Ezekiel 13:22)

Enough for now. Chew and spit when ready.

ps. Reference to son of Levi in Luke 3:24.

Hi jewscout

Glad to have your input. So you think it all a bogus plot, a conspiracy of the early church fathers, and their purpose was what? What did the early church fathers, who were Jewish, want? My read is that they wanted power and control at Jerusalem. So what did they do in order to obtain that power? They recruited and deceived Gentiles into believing they were the new Israel.

Peter began the deception with his visionary lie. Any thoughts on Peter and his character image of "Satan"?

Netdoc

I assume, and I speculate, and I guess, and I analyize the story. I also conclude when I have nothing else to go on.

Yes, Jesus was a man, born in his mom's DNA, and "flesh" of David kinsmen heritage.

Romans 1:3-5, "Concerning his Son, Jesus, Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.."

Does it matter "how" Jesus was conceived? Of course it does. In my opinion the story should be re-examined by the whole of Christianity just for this one "declaration" alone. For it presents "how" Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And it totally destroys the "trinity" in its rediculous and unexplainable form by presenting reality of a traditional lineage of priests "declared" with power at Sinai.

energize said:

Hi jewscout

Glad to have your input. So you think it all a bogus plot, a conspiracy of the early church fathers, and their purpose was what? What did the early church fathers, who were Jewish, want? My read is that they wanted power and control at Jerusalem. So what did they do in order to obtain that power? They recruited and deceived Gentiles into believing they were the new Israel.

Peter began the deception with his visionary lie. Any thoughts on Peter and his character image of "Satan"?

Click to expand...

i don't think it's a conspiracy but as early early christianity was an offshoot of Judaism based on a messianic figure who did not fulfill the role of messiah within a Jewish context they had to explain it somehow. That's where early church leaders began to tweek the purpose and role of Jesus and concept of Messiah to make it a concept different from that of the Messiah in Judaism.
for example, since he didn't accomplish the task that Judaism had laid out for the Messiah the concept of resurrection that already existed in Judaism was adapted to the figure of Jesus and the newly redefined role of messiah within christianity.
as far as Peter goes, i don't know a whole lot about peter, i find that Paul seems to hold a more central role in Christianity.