1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Vouthon, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    send me what you've got :) It will help piece it together quicker... ( especially with Harels help )

    I'm thinking that the juicy bits are at the bottom. Line 25 in brackets is describing Malchi Tzedek as a yud-tzaddik-yud from mem-hei. That's the reference that the scholars are extrapolating ( I think ) into the 4 letter name.
     
  2. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Right, I've edited some of this other scholar's commentary back into my previous post (not sure what happened to my first screenshoots but these work!).

    He has a few short quotations of the Hebrew lines in his English commentary.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Bingo.

    Footnote 70 from your previous post... OK, so, do you see how important it is to look at the Hebrew? The statement/conclusion about the four letter name identified as Malchi-Tzedek ( proper pronouciation ) is based on 3 things

    1) That the two-letter divine name ( pronounced long A, not short e ) is elevated to the 5 letter divine name ( ending in Eeem ) in the messianic prophecy.
    2) That Malchi Tzedek and is the messiah ref in Isaiah
    3) the yud-tzaddik-yud from Mem-hei ( Mah meaning -what- in english, it's a question ;) ) = the four letter name.

    Note that the scholar who did this equated the english word God with the four-letter-name. But the text uses a mysterious title which is not found elsewhere. yud-tzaddik-yud from my estimation means the timeless, righteous, timeless. It is super duper divinly eternally righteous in all directions. ( Makes sense for the Malchi Tzedek the Righteous King ).

    Now, lets add the Mah at the end... that means that the title here is Eternally-Eternal-Righteous-From-What?" Malchi Tzedek Asher yud-Tzaddik-yud M'Mah. That is how I am translating the words from the text which the scholars are understanding as *suggesting* Malchi-Tzedek is identified as the four letter name

    Mem-Hei, the divine location Mah, is legit. It's at the beginning of the Zohar. still, please understand, Eternally-Eternal-Righteous-from-Mah.. is still just one attribute ( middah ). What's missing from this in order for it to fit the book of John is, eternally-eternal-Love ( Ahahavah, another middah ), and eternally-eternal-Glory ( Kavod another middah ). Jesus in the Book of John is demonstrating ( arguably ) eternally-eternal-Glory and eternally-eternal-Love more than anything else. Even if we include eternally-eternal-Righteousness, which I don't see in the Book of John, that still leaves an infinite number of middot that are missing in order to approach the 4 letter name. The one I focues on in my previous reply is, Eternally-Eternal-Restraint ( another middah ) is missing and also arguably Eternally-Eternal-Mercy ( another middah ).

    Now, Mah, is a location and it's pretty close to the top ( more accurately the center ). And it si beyond the foot-stool of G-d, the Throne of Glory. so we've progressed in the chain more in this source that the Book of Enoch. But still yud-tzaddik-yud m'mah, does not equal the four letter name... just look at the two in Hebrew side by side. yud-Tzaddik-yud from Mah, yes would be a a divine being, that part fits the commentary/conclusion, but the four letter name transcends all of that infinitely ( Psa 95:3 ). Hence the infinite number of attributes ( middot ) included in it. And hence there is no dual/multi/simultaneous G-d of Abraham, and that idea which is described in The Book of John cannot claim influence from here. Not from line 25.

    We would need to read the source material of the footnote to move forward, I think. We need to know why they take yud-Tzaddik-yud M'Mah and determine that this is the four letter name.

    I think we'll find it is assumption and it unsubstantiated.
     
  4. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    From what I can tell, all of the scholars I'm reading appear to be suggesting that some references to 'YHWH' and 'God' in the Tanakh are given over to Melchizedek in this text. For instance, rather than "The year of YHWH's favour" (Isaiah 61:2) (the year of the favor of Yhwh ([​IMG])), the scribal author renders this: "For this is the time decreed for the "Year of Melchizedek's favor"" and the scholar I cited highlighted that in doing so: "[he] substitutes Melchizedek for the Tetragrammaton regarding the “year of favor” in the allusion to Isa. 61:2 mentioned in the previous line (2.9)."

    The scholar describes this as 'striking'. According to the translation below, it seems he is also referred to as 'El':


    For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms lxxxii, 1). And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8).


    The translation above is by the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes: The complete Dead Sea scrolls in English, Géza Vermès (2003)

    Apparently, the scribal author does this with other scriptural references as well - he tries to cast Melchizedek as 'your Elohim'.

    So he is referred to by the Hebrew words El and Elohim - in the author's quotation from a range of Tanakh passages that originally spoke about God. The author applies them to Melchizedek (according to the scholar's and translations).

    For example, Psalm 82:1 speaks of God taking his stand in the assembly of heavenly beings but when the psalm is quoted in 11q13, Mekchizedek is the subject. The same with Psalm 7:7-8.
     
    #184 Vouthon, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  5. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    The scribal author is not reflecting Jewish Theology if that is the case.

    Understand, the four letter name is before time. Compare Gen 1:1, with Psa 95:3. It cannot be disputed.

    Also the words in Hebrew for Year and Favor are buzzwords, they have dual meanings.

    Also, there are 3 distinct divine names used here in this one citation. We have a two-letter name from Psa 7, we have a 5 letter name from Psa 82 ( i think, dang roman numbers :confused::D), and then we have the four letter-name that I have been calling transcendent and immanent for all the time.

    Now, all of these are different, all three, they all connate different mechanism thru which G-d interacts with the us here in the material world. As we know from Tanach names in Hebrew are construced from symbolism carried in each of the letters. Easy Examples are Yitzhak ( having to do with laughter ) and Emmanuel ( from Isaiah ). So... let's look at this logically.

    I've been telling you Tzedek is just on attribute. I'ver been telling you the 4 letter name is infinite. Now. It makes 0% sense to say that The Year of Righeousness-Favor/Grace is the same of the Year of Infinite Favor/Grace. Seems to me that these sources are described a failed attempt of someone called either "The Son Of Man" Or "The Righteous King". Maybe it was too too much Righteousness and it was missing all the other important aspects of salvation.

    This whole conclusion, as I said, fails due to false premsies. It is not logical at all, what say you? The only way to make it logical is if there is preconceived notion that the 2 letter name is basically the 5 letter name... and that G-d can be multi-and-dual... like Jesus... or like the polytheists ( Greeks ) .... Do you see what I mean? It's not Abrahamic. Someone is excited about making a discovery and forgot that all of this is cleared up in 2 verses Gen 1:1 and Psa 95:3, not to mention thousands of years of Jewish Theology that proclaims Deuteronomy 6:4: The four letter name, is our G-d, the four letter name is #1, complete, and singular. See below:

    upload_2020-6-19_14-46-13.png
     
  6. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    @Vouthon, based on the KJV of Deut 6:4 it appears that the 4 letter name is translated to "LORD". Can you confirm? Is that the convention?
     
  7. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Yes, to my understanding the KJV - as with most English translations - uses "LORD" for "יהוה" (YHWH).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I just went thru the KJV of the Book of John. Not a single time does JC speak in the name of the LORD. To the contrary he claims that the servants are not greater than the lord. Chapter 15:20.

    The only people who worship the Lord in the story are the Jews saying HoshannaRabah. In all other book of Tanach, the prophet speaks in the the name of the Lord, if I recall. This is significant. Why doesn't JC in the story claim to be speaking from the LORD?

    Further, that search lead me to chapter 6, you should re-read chapter 6. Especially focus on verses 32-33 Note, there is a seal on JC's head, JC puts a seal on the food, gives it to the people, they eat it.... THEN after they eat it, he tells them what it does.

    Also, the people are confused, they think that this JC is different from another Jesus of Joseph and Mary.

    What does this look like to you? It's certainly not ethical. It could be an imposter...simply reading the narrative of the story. Has this been considered?

    Listen, both verses 32-33 are true, but they are a poisonous cunning truth. The food he gives them was made by "My Father", not God.

    If you look at the greek it's clear, he gives them food from some *other* being named "MyFather", but says that heavenly food comes from another word in Greek for God, It's Ho Pater Mou, in 32, and Theous, in 33.

    Whom else uses poisonous truth in the *most* cunning of ways? verse 32 even ends with the word "TRUE" after repeating the food comes from "MyFather" not God.
     
    #188 dybmh, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  9. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,501
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @dybmh and @Vouthon

    1) JOHN 5:8-9 - THE MESSIAH HEALS THE INVALID AND LAWS AND INTENT OF GOD VERSUS THE TRADITIONS OF PHARISEES REGARDING WHAT MADE ONE “PURE” OR “IMPURE”


    dybmh further explains : OK, the problem here is, that healing on Shabbos is not a sin. That wasn't in my list. He was traveling and working. (#178)


    WORK CAN BE DONE ON THE SABBATH

    After confronted with a list of different sorts of work in post #171, dybmh now agrees that certain work can be done on the sabbath “but not for our own self glorification...” (dybmh admits this is post #175)

    I agree that “self glorification” is wrong.

    This was one of the lessons the Messiah was trying to teach the Pharisees. It was wrong for the hypocrites to pray “in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have the glory of men.” (Mtt 6:2) just as it was wrong to hold religious traditions of men such as the pharisees in priority over the Laws of God. This may have been why the Jews that later became known as Christians could see the truth of his criticisms.


    RECOGNITION (GLORY) VS SELF GLORIFICATION

    Thus it was important that the Messiah taught “I seek not my own glory” (John 8). He did not NEED to seek glory since he already HAD glory which the Father had already bestowed upon him as the Messiah before the earth was formed. The Messiahs overarching purpose was to Glorify The Lord God and to fulfill the Lord Gods plan for mankind by accomplishing the atonement for mankind which the Lord God sent him to accomplish. The Lord Gods work and his Glory in creating and populating the earth is the salvation of mankind. THAT sort of work can and should be done on the Sabbath.

    While the Messiah does want individuals to recognize him for what he is, it is for the purpose of saving mankind that he wants them to see he was the Messiah that they were expecting and who would accomplish the atonement for their salvation, according to the Lord Gods’ plan.


    TRAVEL CAN BE UNDERTAKEN ON THE SABBATH

    The rabbinic purpose of regulating movement was not to stop all movement (that could not BE done), but they rejected undue exertion and sought serenity that would leave one free to worship God. For example, the rule from the Jewish Tosefta is “One may not run on the Sabbath to the point of exhaustion, but one may stroll leisurely throughout the day without hesitation”. The bare law itself did not describe the important moral imperatives that required going beyond the man made traditions. Thus the rabbis interpreted Exo 18:30 “And thou shalt make them know the path they are to walk in and the work they are to do.” And, the work they are to do says Rabbi Elazar are acts of saintliness which are “beyond the measure of the law”.


    Mankind are to both travel and work on the Sabbath. The path is the Lords path and the work is the Lords work.

    So, yes. The rabbis are correct that we not only may, but should walk or travel on the Sabbath when it means to do acts of kindness, saintliness and acts that are beneficial to mankind in the accomplishment of the Lord Gods plan for mankind. Thus it is that the Judaism that became Christianity saw the work of the Lord and these Jews felt that no one did the work of the Lord God more than the Messiah. These Jews honored Jesus for doing saintly work of God instead of condemning him for it.


    Do you want to talk more about “work” that may be done on the sabbath, or “traveling” on the sabbath or do you want to move on to your second complaint?

    Dymbh said : “2) Desecration of Shabbos, not delighting in it”

    Clear
    εινετζνεω
     
    #189 Clear, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Beautiful, that's from a different book, though. The scene in John is a little different if I recall.
    My claim was that his justification was out of the inherent Glory of the JC-Father couplet. It was not claimed to be out of Glory for The LORD. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
    Ok, I'm happy to discard the problem about Traveling. But certainly, everyone knows that Shabbos is a bout No "work" however a person chooses to define it, that's the prohibition. No work. There are any number of ways a person can approach this subject matter with humility towards G-d and Torah. and he admits to doing "work" continuously. He knows what work is. We simply must agree there or else he cannot be a "rabbi" of any sort.

    What he is advocating for in public is not remembering the Shabbos ( literal translation of the law in Tanach ). If he is always doing the work of God, then there is no difference between weekday and The Day of Rest. That is erasing Shabbos. He is arguing to erase Shabbos entirely for anyone doing G-d's work in The Book of John. That is leading a Jewish person to a violation, again, of the Ten commandments ( ref: Exodus 20:8 )
    I would respectfully disagree on this. But as I said, the impurity is when he is making the miracles and actively transgressing.
    Here's my proposal.

    I will grant you that, a prophet and a Kabballist would possibly have the capability to tread the waters of these transgressions, mostly, without incurring impurity. I think it's important for believers in Christ to feel that Jesus was faultless. However, from the Jewish perspective he doesn't need to be faultless at all. he can do Teshuvah, and there are other ways to atone and purify oneself, also, a person like that may have foreknowledge of gain and loss on a supernatural level so that they can do no harm, or, possibly they can intuit the will of G-d and only work within those bounds. As an exmaple, King David in the story was a master of Teshuvah, and therefore it would make sense that his descendant the prodigy, the Moshiach, would also be a master of Teshuvah. I say it's possible, but I don't see that in the Book of John. But pretending that I do, we can move on past the particulars of Halacha which is an area where we disagree without any chance of compromise.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    What I want to talk about next is chapter 6. Specifically in reference to John's quotation from John 3:27. Then compare that to what is said in Chapter 6, John 6:32-33. if you look at the Greek, it is very obvious. The food is not from heaven, it has a seal on it, so does JC, seals are occult practices. How is this reconciled?

    Was John wrong in 3:27? Isn't this exchange in Chapter six another version of the poison apple from way way back in Genesis?

    In Judaism, it is very important to receive bread from a G-d Fearing Jew. there are additional restrictions on manufacture of wine as well. Basically, for a Jew, the moral of this whole story from beginning to end is teaching not to introduce a foreign substance, food, drink, or spirit into yourself without knowing *where it comes from*. Note 3:27, it's all about where.

    Please note in chapter six, where does the food and drink come from? It isn't *received* ( λαμβάνειν in greek ) from heaven. This is contradicting what John said in Chapter 3. Pay close attention to 6:32-33. JC here is speaking the truth, just like the serpent. Giving truth but it's still poison. In Chapter 6, JC comfirms what John said in 3:27, but also tells them that the food he is offering is not coming down from heaven. It is not received from heaven. it is heavenly food from an other, "MyFather".

    That's the story. the only way to read it differently is to change the words around. or insert words from somewhere else, which is fine. But this particular book cannot be Jewish of any kind if JC is to be understood as virtuous... It's occult, and it paints it as a negative. Judaism does not encourage nor condone what's happening in The Story, in this chapter, and neither does John in 3:27.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    I'm sure we will disagree about this, my friend, and that's fine. How we lead our lives is what's more important than how the story reads on paper all on it's own without additional resources. the same goes for me and Torah, if not more so. It requires oral torah and requires a tradition of ethical, do no harm, practices. This is why Mussar is important and learning about the great Rabbis and Tzaddikim is important. because it shows more clearly how to function in the material world in cooperation with the divine will as written in Torah. Torah on it's own is as bad if not worse than some of this. Especially the later books in the canon.

    That said, after chapter 6, I'd like to get your impression, and @Vouthon's impression, of the end of the Book. What do you think? Did Jesus in the story accomplish his goal? If so, why do you think so?
     
    #190 dybmh, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    In the other three gospels, the term 'LORD' (kyrios in Greek) for God is widely used i.e. Jesus said in Matthew: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (22:37); "At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father." (Matthew 11:26-27)

    But undoubtedly Jesus preferred to invoke God as his 'Father', to emphasis the unique relationship that he believed himself to share with the 'LORD'. You yourself noted that 'God' is known by various name in the Tanakh: most importantly the divine name, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) but also 'elohim' and 'El Elyon' etc.

    The equivalent for 'elohim' in Greek is theos and Jesus often states that He speaks what 'God' has told him:


    "He whom God (theos) has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands." (John 3:34)

    "Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but His who sent me. Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own. Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of Him who sent him is true, and there is nothing false in him." (John 7:16-17)

    But Judaism also recognises God by the title 'father' - a number of Jewish prayers begin with the invocation “Our Father in Heaven” (Avinu she-bashamayim) or “Our Father, our King” (Avinu Malkenu), no?

    This is simply the title that Jesus preferred to address God by, his chosen nomenclature.

    However, he also speaks of 'the Lord' in a way that might either be referring to God or himself, because he is also frequently so-titled by the gospel writers:


    "But Jesus refused, and said to him, “Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” (Mark 5:19)

    "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)

    Kyrios is used to refer to both 'the Lord' (as in God) and also 'lord' as in an actual human liege lord or sovereign. So, one has to note carefully the context in which it is being used (both grammatically and situationally) to avoid confusing the two when exegizing the text.
     
    #191 Vouthon, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  12. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +5,982
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Ahah... Like the song.... who was it... from the 80s.... Mr. Mister... ( link )
    Ah-hah-hah
    Certainly, 100% agreed. What's important is that I know which words in Greek are intended to line up with the names in Hebrew.

    Except.. Matthew 11:26-27 does not have the word Kyrios in it. The verses are being spoken in the name of Pater/Patros.

    Now, ready for this.... I searched on this, to see where this word Kyrios comes up... I noticed... Oh 2 John 1:3... but guess what ( this is funny in two ways )

    1) I never knew there was a 2nd John ( or even a 3rd John )
    2) The strong's concordance is wrong. It says that Kyrios exists int he verse in Greek, but it's wrong. It's not there, in Greek it still gives the blessing in the name of TheFather and NOT the Lord.

    Bro, if the concordance is wrong, and the KJV inserts the word LORD into 2 John 1:3, and it's even cataloged wrong int he lexicon... that means we have to look at all the Gospels in Greek to see whom is being blessed and referenced. So far, it looks like the sources were changed and the concordence cannot be trusted. The greek in Matthew gives credit NOT to Kyrios or Theous in Matthew 11:26-27, but you asserted like it was common knowledge.

    What are your thoughts on this?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    'Pater' is Greek for father, the equivalent of the Hebrew avinu (our father).

    In the Greek, a variant of 'kyrios' - 'kyrie' - is used in this verse by Jesus to address God the Father:

    Matthew 11:25 Interlinear: At that time Jesus answering said, 'I do confess to Thee, Father, Lord of the heavens and of the earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and understanding ones, and didst reveal them to babes.

    Pater Πάτερ Father Kyrie Κύριε Lord

    Kyrie - Wikipedia

    Kyrie, a transliteration of Greek Κύριε, vocative case of Κύριος (Kyrios), is a common name of an important prayer of Christian liturgy, also called the Kyrie eleison (/ˈkɪərieɪ ɪˈleɪɪsɒn, -sən/ KEER-ee-ay il-AY-iss-on, -⁠ən; Ancient Greek: Κύριε, ἐλέησον, romanized: Kýrie eléēson, lit. 'Lord, have mercy').[1]

    Again, context - both linguistic and situational - determines whether 'kyrie' is in reference to Lord God or some other lesser 'lord'. Here, Jesus is addressing God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth as kyrie (Lord).
     
    #193 Vouthon, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    And yeah @dybmh, that 80s song was "kyrie eleison". That's what the song was invoking, the well-known Christian prayer to God (a bit before my time but I've heard it on the radio before) as a lyric :D

     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    What Does the Bible Say About The End Of Time?

    Science, the history of practiced by human being males, alive living human males, on and for behalf of speaking, thinking, theorising, story telling, formulas and design, building design, owning and operating as a human the design for SCIENCE.

    Never was science for natural, natural existence, meaning of natural or purpose of natural....it was for the OCCULT reasoning only.

    Males in science as a human living on a planet that they claimed was a self creative entity in a science statement was God O the stone. Owner of its own gases.

    STone existing therefore owned the gases that only its body in spatial creation owned....so it did not have any comparison to anything else, why science is a liar....for the statements of scientific relativity about STONE were always known in the cosmology....as status of statements.

    2012 was stated to be the END TIME for the ending of the nuclear ground fission attack that had been removing mountain mass, fusion ever since it was machine activated to come into our alight gases to enable nuclear science conversions.

    Earth never owned the amount of radiation mass or radio waves for the sciences, it owned only radio wave/radiation bio Nature life support which is not any machine converting. Hence our life/body and cell should remain constant, healthy and a lived life span of C value 100.....for every body....for the scientific quote in medical science said all life is created equally so therefore should not be sacrificed.

    STATED scientific relativity that no human can argue against.

    Therefore all male mind adult selves as an adult and a Father self, was still mind affected by Satanic radiation UFO fall out in their conscious thinking capacity, being a self warning to their owned persons.

    So they were all warned about thinking on behalf of their own self destruction, for it was clearly and obviously known that human male consciousness had been affected and reasoned inaccurately, what the biblical teachings were about.

    The relativity of not yet owning the conscious self survival idealism that humanity needed to evolve their self beyond their past self destructive occult purposes.
     
  16. VoidoftheSun

    VoidoftheSun Necessary Heretical, Fundamentally Orthodox

    Joined:
    May 3, 2020
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +126
    Religion:
    Shi'ite (Batiniyya Twelver) Muslim, anti-Dualism, Perennialist metaphysician etc
    Hear hear, wouldn't want to step on eggshells :D
     
    #196 VoidoftheSun, Jun 19, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  17. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Ah, those are the Johannine epistles - letters written by the same early Christian community that edited the Gospel of John.

    They appear to have been written by an elder (presbyter) who was perhaps a disciple and successor of the original 'John' (the author of the fourth gospel) as leader of the community he founded.

    The letters should be read in tandem with the gospel, as they elucidate many of its themes using a similar vocabulary. 2 and 3 John are very short but 1 John is quite lengthy and has some important theology in it.

    For example, its where the phrase "God is love" originates:


    "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

    (1 John 4:7-8)​
     
  18. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,501
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @dybmh and @Vouthon

    1) REGARDING DYBMH'S CLAIM #1 AGAINST THE MESSIAH, HE HEALED, WORKED AND TRAVELED ON THE SABBATH

    Clear said “
    WORK CAN BE DONE ON THE SABBATH
    After confronted with a list of different sorts of work in post #171, dybmh now agrees that certain work can be done on the sabbath “but not for our own self glorification...” (dybmh admits this is post #175)
    I agree that “self glorification” is wrong.
    This was one of the lessons the Messiah was trying to teach the Pharisees. It was wrong for the hypocrites to pray “in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have the glory of men.” (Mtt 6:2) just as it was wrong to hold religious traditions of men such as the pharisees in priority over the Laws of God. This may have been why the Jews that later became known as Christians could see the truth of his criticisms. (post #189)


    Dybmh replied : “Beautiful, that's from a different book, though. The scene in John is a little different if I recall.”

    Your reply is irrelevant to either your claim that the Messiah became impure because he did pious work or traveled on the sabbath. It is also irrelevant to your claim #2 that he did not delight in the Sabbath (thus “desecrating it”).


    2) DYBMHS' "ODD CLAIM"
    Dybmh said : “My claim was that his justification was out of the inherent Glory of the JC-Father couplet. It was not claimed to be out of Glory for The LORD. Doesn't that seem odd to you?”

    Yes, your claim seems very odd, especially since you do not seem to understand the basic principles of the Judaism that became Christianity and continue to mischaracterize it.

    Judaism that accepted the Messiah understood that the Messiah sought the Glory of the Father partly by accomplishing the atonement for mankind as part of Gods plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind in a social heaven.

    The Messiah already HAD glory with the Father before the world was and would have it again as he accomplished the atonement and returned to be with God.


    3) TRAVELING IS NOW "OK" AND NO LONGER MAKES THE MESSIAH "IMPURE"
    Dybmh said : “Ok, I'm happy to discard the problem about Traveling”

    Good, it was actually never a problem, you simply did not know it was not a problem. Now that you realize the Messiah was not impure in the eyes of God because he did the will of God in traveling and healing the invalid, and now that you realize that the Messiah was not impure because he healed on the Sabbath, this is good.

    4) REGARDING DYBMHS' NEW THEORY THAT ALWAYS WORSHIPING GOD IN DOING THE WILL OF GOD "ERASES THE SABBATH"
    Dybmh said : “ If he is always doing the work of God, then there is no difference between weekday and The Day of Rest. That is erasing Shabbos. He is arguing to erase Shabbos entirely for anyone doing G-d's work in The Book of John.

    Now you are becoming desperate for something to find fault in. To claim that the Messiahs habit of worshiping and honoring God by trying to do Gods will every single minute of every single day and not just “on the sabbath” is somehow “erasing the Sabbath” is incredibly silly. It feels like you are desperate to find some fault, some criticism that will justify rejection of him. Christian readers may be seeing a version of what the original Rabbinic Judaism did in trying to reject the Messiah in such tactics.

    Israels Messiah seemed to be trying to give insight to Pharisaic Judaism and give them enough insight to recognize their many silly man-made traditions were not true Thorah nor its real intent. They had come to prioritize their own man-made traditions OVER Thorah. For example, the rule of the Sanhedrin xi.3a that “It is more culpable to teach contrary to the precepts of the scribes, than contrary to the Thorah itself.” Reveals the true base of these non-torah traditions which came to characterize the Pharisaic Judaism of Jesus’ age. He was trying to get them to return to the Thorah rather than simply engage in “purity signaling” and “religious posturing”.


    5) WHAT?
    Dybmh said : “I would respectfully disagree on this. But as I said, the impurity is when he is making the miracles and actively transgressing.”
    You have already admitted there was no transgression in the miracle of healing through Gods power. Have you changed your mind?
    You have admitted that traveling is actually allowed on the Sabbath and we have already seen that works of righteousness are supposed to be done on the Sabbath. Have you changed your mind?
    We have yet to discover any of your criticisms made the Messiah “impure” in the eyes of God.


    6) A NEW PROPOSAL, "LETS CHANGE THE SUBJECT"

    Dybmh : “Here's my proposal”
    Your proposal is kindly declined. I see NO need to change the subject until we have examined ALL of your list of seven ways the Messiah became impure which you claimed in post #163). We have already discovered the first one having to do with healing, traveling and doing the work of God was inaccurate. Lets not change the subject until we discuss the others.

    7) #2 IN DYBMHS' LIST OF REASONS THE MESSIAH WAS "IMPURE"

    Dybmh said that the Messiah was guilty of : “Desecration of Shabbos, not delighting in it” (#163)

    Was your claim that honoring God on EVERY day “erases the Sabbath” your entire theory on this point or did you have something else that you want to try to present to support this claim #2 of 7?


    Clear
    ειτζτζτζω
     
    #198 Clear, Jun 20, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
  19. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Just a textual variant owing to scribal copying 'tis all. Some ancient Greek manuscripts of John have kyrios here and some don't. Really no biggie.

    Depends on the judgement of the translator as to which manuscripts are closer to the original and/or have the most testimony between different manuscript traditions.

    But from the citation above in Matthew, it is clear that kyrios / kyrie and pater are just different names for God in the NT books (unless they are being addressed to some lesser entity, like a human liege lord or a person's biological father) the creator of the heavens and the earth.

    Again:

    Matthew 11:25 Interlinear: At that time Jesus answering said, 'I do confess to Thee, Father (pater), Lord (kyrie) of the heavens and of the earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and understanding ones, and didst reveal them to babes.

    The Father (pater) is the LORD GOD (kyrios/kyrie, theos) in these texts.
     
    #199 Vouthon, Jun 20, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
  20. Vouthon

    Vouthon Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,728
    Ratings:
    +4,199
    Religion:
    Catholic Christianity
    Agreed, the Tetragrammaton is indeed "before time" and eternal.

    But note again how the Messiah Son of Man was described in 1 Enoch:

    In Charlesworth's translation:


    "At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits...

    For this (reason) he was chosen and hidden in his [God’s] presence, before the world was created, and [he will remain] before him forever."


    (1 Enoch 48:2-5)


    As pre-existing in the before-Time, from eternity. Before the creation of the cosmos, the Son of Man is described as existing eternally in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and being named by Him in the before-Time.

    Compare with Jesus's words in John:


    "After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you...

    So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed
    ."

    (John 17:1-5)


    Jesus is here claiming to be the same figure as that described in 1 Enoch.
     
    #200 Vouthon, Jun 20, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
Loading...