Analyzing Messianic Anointing.

[Hockeycowboy]

On those rare occasions, I sometimes agree with Deeje.

Now, I don’t believe in the whole nonsense about the Original Sin, but I have to agree with Deeje, that sex has nothing to do with the original sin.

It was their disobedience - when god told them to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, in which god punished them with some curses. Not sex.

If it was sex, then why did god decreed to the humans in Genesis 1, to go forth and multiple?

If sex was a sin, then why did god tell Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have many descendants that would live in the land (Canaan) first promised to Abraham.

They wouldn’t have children, grandchildren and descendants if sex were forbidden.

That’s just plain logical reasoning! Good for you!

 

[John D. Brey]

But unless there is what Paul called...the collective 'unity of mind in the same line of thought' (1 Corinthians 1:10)...it cannot be the truth. The truth unites people...falsehood divides them. All of the first Christians were taught the same things. No one was permitted to bring their own ideas into the congregation because that was a sign of apostasy. (2 John 9-10)

The most fascinating property of language is its capacity to make metaphors. But what an understatement! For metaphor is not a mere extra trick of language, as it is so often slighted in the old schoolbooks on composition; it is the very constitutive ground of language.

Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p. 48.​

For me the most fascinating property of interpretation is its capacity to create division of thought. But what an understatement. For interpretation is not a mere optional layer of thought, something that can be used or not used when thinking (as it's often slighted in the condemnations come from anyone with a different interpretation); it's the very constitutive ground of thought.

There's no uninterpreted thought. Which is a rabbit hole deeper than might be apparent since when you speak of what Paul, or Jesus, taught, you can't dispose of interpretation concerning what they thought and taught.

Now we can speak of cliques, religions, dogmas, and doctrinal positions, created by finding two or more people who agree on an interpretation, therein constituting an orthodoxy; buy there isn't one orthodoxy in all the world that is agreed on by everyone. Which kinda implies that the minute we find someone who agrees with us about what Paul or Jesus think, thought, taught, as interpreted by the text come down to us, we've just created disunity with those who don't agree with our interpretation of the text of what Paul or Jesus think, thought, and or taught.

Which is like Wittgenstein's point that the eyeball isn't in the visual perception it creates. Often times the interpreter, his shape, form, the way he thinks, and interprets, isn't considered part of the interpretation since just as the eyeball isn't in its own line of sight, too often the interpreter, or interpretive clique, orthodoxy, doctrinal family, don't realize they are like the eyeball that hides its predetermined biases when it delivers up its revelation.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It should be faith-strengthening to share one's beliefs, and the scripture that supports them. There is one 'big picture' and everything must fit in with no wriggle room. If there is wriggle room...people will wriggle. Jesus left no wriggle room. The basic doctrines were set in concrete. One of the greatest departures made by the church was the adoption of the trinity. Nowhere was this part of Christ's teachings.....never once did he ever claim to be equal with his Father. They changed the very nature of God and placed the son where the Father alone should be. A direct breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)

From my perspective there's a slight logical problem in speaking of sharing one's believes and then claiming there's just one "big picture" (one correct belief) since technically there should be nothing to share since everyone would agree on the big picture, the one correct belief.

It seems like the only way that kind of sharing can take place is if the sharer thinks he or she has the biggest share of what he or she is sharing in which case he or she doesn't want or need what someone else might be silly enough to want to share since if it's worth sharing it's already circumscribed in the big sharer's big picture he or she is sharing so givingly. And if its not, it must not be part of the big picture being shared by the biggest sharer.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Essentially, I see where the churches have totally corrupted the fundamentals of the faith......the trinity, as I have already mentioned....."immortality of the soul" resulting in a "heaven or hell" scenario....but this is not found in Jesus' teachings either. In sentencing the Pharisees to "Gehenna" what did Jesus condemnation actually mean? What is "gehenna" which in many Bibles is translated as "hell"? What are "fires that never stop burning", or "the worms that never die"? (Mark 9:43-48)

From my perspective you speak of the fundamentals of the faith and then give an interpretation of what is fundamental that sounds more like the dogmas of a religion given to their own god-given right to interpret various dogmas. When you ask what "gehenna" means, or what "hell" means, we know you're speaking about doing the hard work of interpreting those words correctly. But when you say someone has corrupted the fundamentals of faith, do you suppose that your religious determination of what is fundamental is free from interpretation?

The trinity is a dogma based on interpretation of various statements of scripture. The word "trinity" doesn't exist in the original text just as the word "Jesus" doesn't exist in the original text. Even Jehovah, and Witness, are words that aren't found in the original text.

I fear the word "fundamental" might branch out, and it does for many persons too dogmatic in their understanding of truth, to incorporate every aspect of the group-dogma since many groups believe they have the "big picture" such that every element of their dogma grows, according to their worldview, out of the fundamentals, and are thus just as dogmatically fundamental as the fundamentals.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

From our website....

"Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, and China. Then, centuries later, the Israelites adulterated their worship of Jehovah with acts of veneration to the false god Tammuz. The Bible refers to this form of worship as a ‘detestable thing.’—Ezekiel 8:13, 14.

. . . Have you heard of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? <s>



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But in any case, the configuration is not the issue.....the fact that the cross greatly predates Christianity and was itself a pagan religious symbol long before the death of Christ, why would such a symbol, with disgusting origins be used for the death of God's son?

Was he not made sin for us? Perhaps on the cross? . . . Does he not, himself, compare his place of death to Nehushtan, a stauros with a deadly serpent nailed to it, representing sin and death? Did not Hezekiah treat the very stauros Isaiah calls the spirit of the Lord in Moses right hand (Isaiah 63:12) as a filthy thing (2 Kings 18:4)? How can that be? The very rod of Moses' authority, which parted the sea and healed those bitten with sin is taken outside the city gates and hammered into oblivion. Moses right hand is made leprous by Hezekiah just as prophesied by God.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why would anyone want to make a replica of the instrument of torture used to execute someone they love?

Believe it or not, some believe the glory of the cross of Christ is that it's the one place in the universe, and in the arrow of time, when all dichotomies collapse in one place and time. Which is to say when a disciple of Christ looks at the place of his death they don't see death, or life, but something beyond the dualistic distinction. They don't see a Jew, or a Gentile, a male or a female, but something gloriously beyond these distinctions. They don't even see pain and torture versus pleasure and peace since at this one place and time all distinctions collapse in the person of Christ.

Some would say seeing the cross as an ornament of torture is looking at Christ after the flesh, and that we should no longer see things through the carnal prism, but through a new means of perception made, and perfected . . . [clearing throat] . . . on a lonely cross on Golgotha.



John

 

[Deeje]

@John D. Brey It will all come to its foretold conclusion, in spite of what we personally believe.

Your stated beliefs, quite frankly, at times make me cringe. I have never encountered anyone else who believes as you do. That alone should give you pause, because no Christian can be a “one man band”.....they never have and never will, act alone....or believe what no one else does, based on some way out suggestions by individuals whose ideas appeal to you for some reason.

There are only “sheep and goats” in the world and Jesus has been dividing mankind into one or the other of those categories throughout these problematic “last days”, but the destinations of both are also foretold. They are not negotiable.

Two choices.....that’s all there is. We are either on the “cramped and narrow” road to life....or the “broad and spacious” road to death. By our own choices, we reveal what is in our hearts. We are either part of the people God has “cleansed” in these critical times....or we are part of the unclean worship that has been practised by the majority for centuries....even if it’s of our own invention.

Since Jesus is the appointed judge, and God himself issues the invitation to come to his son, the finish line for every one of us is determined by God, not by us. We determine what is “truth” to ourselves, but God determines what is “truth” to him. Sometimes the gap between the two, is an unbridgeable chasm.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. Since there can be no consensus even in the basics, it is apparent that only God can reveal his truth to a person, and he only does that when he sees a receptive heart. (1 Corinthians 3:5-9)

Thank you for the opportunity to share my beliefs with you.......I can only wish you well.