Steven Carr

Larry Hurtado's blog has a posting about the Jewish concept of heavenly beings that has remarkable echoes of Doherty's theory of early Christians worshipping a heavenly being , rather than a crucified criminal of http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...olarly-debate/

I should point out that while Christian scholars dredge Jewish texts looking for heavenly beings that were regarded as divine or semi-divine by Jews, so that they can claim that it was perfectly possible for a Jew to worship Jesus, while still being a monotheist, they gloss over the fact that their Jesus was supposed to be a crucified criminal, not an archangel like Metatron.

It is one thing for a Jew to propose to another Jew that an archangel can share in divine status, but it is a different thing to propose that a crucified criminal should be worshipped.

Paul, of course, makes no mention of any controversy about worshipping Jesus. The only controversy seemed to be over whether or not the Law should still be kept (circumcision, table-fellowship etc)

sotto voce

Names, please?

Christian scholars actually find that belief in a person both human and divine is necessary to proper Bible belief, because such a person is the prophesied messiah. The Jew who says that there is a messiah to come (and surely, few of them will fail to do so) must agree that the messiah will be 'Mighty God' and 'Everlasting Father'. 'G-d, with us'. Or, if they can manage it, 'God, with us'.

Crazy. It's common enough to accuse Christians of crimes. Slander happens every day. But it's novel to claim that they actually admire criminality.

An archangel safely in the heavenly places could never be falsely accused of being a criminal. Jesus was demonstrated to be divine precisely when and because he allowed himself to be treated as a criminal by coming to this shit-hole. (Ok, I exaggerate. But not much.) As he said himself, if criminals like you, treat you with respect, even notice your existence, you're really in deep doo-doo.

Circumcision, yes, table fellowship, no. Peter's weakness (not policy) of not eating with Gentiles was a consequence of the policy of the circumcision party. Paul's firm direction that Christians should not eat with (i.e. recognise) those who call themselves Christian but behave scandalously is not relevant (though it excludes at least 99% of people who are today reckoned to be Christians; which suits people who like it to be thought that Christians are criminals, I suppose).

Sheshbazzar

Paul's firm direction that Believers should not eat with (i.e. recognize) those who call themselves 'Christians' and behave scandalously is not relevant (though it excludes at least 99% of people who are today reckoned to be 'Christians';-\)

Ever think of how many of the early NT Believers lived out their entire lives without having even so much as heard of the foreign word 'christians' ? (Acts 11:26)

Seems like it might be relevant to something. Are these that 99% of people reckoned to be 'Christians' who spend their lives in bed with, and fucking with the Great Whore of Babylon and her whoring daughters, that are appointed to end up being so much vulture food ? (Rev 17- 19:21)

sotto voce

There are probably many millions of Catholics who are unaware of the history of their organisation, who are innocent, in this respect, at least. But for educated Westerners, to give the RCC any recognition as a church, or even as a part of civilised society, excludes them from the church. There are more than they who are excluded, though. Liberals of the moral kind bring exclusion on themselves, too.

Sheshbazzar

It might be noted that I did not use 'QUOTE' or quotation marks. I rephrased the statement.

Unawareness is not to be confused with innocence.

The daughters are partakers of the Mother Church's spiritual fornications and whoredoms.
Mother and daughters alike, 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' are composed of all of the adult people within these religious organizations, and are to be held individually responsible for what manner of religious organization it is that they have chosen to align themselves with, and join themselves to.

Revelation 19:21; Receiving the mark, and worshiping the image, and aligning themselves with abominations, and murderers,
99% of ALL of 'Christianity' is predestined to become vulture food.

To 'COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE!' You need to get away. Get rid of her MARK. Stop admiring the IMAGE she made. And stop calling yourself by that family NAME of her 'husband'. (-Lord -Baal)

sotto voce

There may well be Catholics who have never been presented with the gospel, whose status is akin to those who lived in, say, South America before Jesus lived. Such people, never made aware of the true origin and nature of the Vatican, may, when final judgment comes, accept Jesus, and not become 'vulture food'. They cannot be said to have received the mark of Revelation. But those who are aware, Catholic or not, and find the RCC acceptable, cannot be innocent, and join these people, who by the Bible, are to be both condemned and destroyed:

'Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute... those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.' 2 Pe 2:2,10 NIV

A suitable description of the RCC, whose human leadership is defiant rebellion against authority.

It cannot be suitable description of any individual true Protestant, who by definition recognises no human spiritual authority. If a supposed Protestant or any other educated person gives credence to the RCC, they too face condemnation and destruction. But some Protestants totally reject the RCC, and describe it as criminal. They likewise reject every other person who lays claim to be Christian, but brings Christ into disrepute. They cannot be said to have received the mark of Revelation, either.

Chili

Paul's point was that Catholics are not Christians, never were, never are, and never will be, except they can associate in their Church Triumphant where only 'solitary individuals' unite in the spirit of truth wherein they are united (Elysian field instead of church).

Their circumcision will be what Jewish circumcision is symbolic of in fore-shadow, except now without desire once they have been crucifed, ie. no dick to please because the kundalini has been raised, also known as 'sage impotence' or 'no marriage in heaven', I think it says someplace.

What this means is that they will be circumsized by nature as the animal man in the freedom they have found = no slavery to the human condition wherein also the body is transformed to remove it's own opposite between 'humanity and 'womanity' as the prior condition they once served (sexual-ity is an illusion to arouse).

So to identify with Christians is to be counted among them, which they are not, and hence Paul's word "bewitched" for those who call themselves Christian and still go to church as a sign that they still obey the law as slave to it. So now Christians are identified as witches, if that is what the word 'bewitched' suggest (Gal.3:1 and 5:1-4).

Chili

Yes, Catholics are sinners, so what do you expect? But the Church advocates 'for procreation only' and the 'missionary position' to be used to identify the 'doer' and 'doee' that she might conceive and not be the temple tramp in charge, 'on top' of all places to get a 'higher high' while so called Christians say "YES" and hand out free condoms all over the world so they are not the only ones so ill conceived . . . while they gather to convene right down to even two by two's to find a carcass to devour, still pushing that same old wheel barrow uphil until they die so that good times can begin down there.

I think you are funny.

Chili

Oh how sweet of you to write that, or is it maybe guilt.

So as a non-voting Liberal, I will thank you for the favor to not identify us as one of yours.

Chili

Nono, Catholics do not go religion shopping as they have Rome inside their very soul, and are moved by Her until She becomes the antagonist they can no longer stand and will confront Her (your so called greater whore) in the final stand and there will find what She is all about 'in us' to the very core of our own being.

So then the TOL described in early Gen.3 that we parted company with at the end of Gen.3 is where we meet her again, as Catholic only, and She will take us back to Rome to show us what she is all about as the wherewithal of man in the image of God also known as the imago of 'the man.' To note here is that Peter moved to Roma and so now not Nazareth but Rome is home for us as the city of God with distinction in the world we know.

And btw, they have toilets there for vistiors to piss against her if they feel urged to do.