Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 07-11-2008, 02:16 PM

The "second death" was as the first, separation from God, to become "as though a person had not been, as though a person had not existed".

So Jesus said, "ye must be born again". Ignorance provided a rebirth, a return to the fold of Israel as a person of God.

The thousand year reign is bogus emphasis on the gathering of people. There is nothing comparable in OT.

Have you considered that Jesus was a false prophet? Even comparable to the serpent in the Garden if not even one and the same? Both the serpent and Jesus promised life to people, .. "ye shall not surely die, and follow me and ye shall never die".

ohmi · 07-11-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

* Isn't it the narrow way? The broad way leading to destruction?

Read it again, the FEW [the 144,000 justified saints] go by the narrow way [Matt 7:14] , but the MANY are also saved later [Rev 7:9-10] who came to Jesus by the broad way of destruction in death and the end of this earth and heavens.

Quote:

* Jesus isn't returning.

But the scripture states that he will return for the few who have departed from iniquity [sin, unlovingness] ,and after resurrecting those who have died, translate them to spirit so that they are free of any chance of a second death for sin.

Quote:

Gentiles (non Jewish people) had no reason to be saved

God is the saviour of ALL , not just of Israel ... the remnant of Israel are first only so that they can serve the many later as perfect priests and kings in the kingdom.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Quote:

God said "I will bring back.

I do not see the relevance of this, nor does it seem to be in the scripture in the words that you quote, please explain ...

storytime · 07-11-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

* Isn't it the narrow way? The broad way leading to destruction?

Read it again, the FEW [the 144,000 justified saints] go by the narrow way [Matt 7:14] , but the MANY are also saved later [Rev 7:9-10] who came to Jesus by the broad way of destruction in death and the end of this earth and heavens.

But the scripture states that he will return for the few who have departed from iniquity [sin, unlovingness] ,and after resurrecting those who have died, translate them to spirit so that they are free of any chance of a second death for sin.

God is the saviour of ALL , not just of Israel ... the remnant of Israel are first only so that they can serve the many later as perfect priests and kings in the kingdom.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Quote:

God said "I will bring back.

I do not see the relevance of this, nor does it seem to be in the scripture in the words that you quote, please explain ...

I was referring to God saying that He would bring the people of Israel back to himself. (Ezekiel)

I don't find that God of Israel wanted to be God and savior of all men. His people were only Israel, the one seed of Isaac called Jacob. And, especially as other people already had their own gods. Yahweh seemed to be more concerned with keeping his own people from straying to those other gods.

I don't interpret "the end" as meaning the end of the world. When the disciples asked Jesus "who then can be saved?", Jesus explained it as those who would be saved into the next generation. (Matthew 24:12-14)

The return of Christ would be to those who looked for his appearing. "Where two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." "The words", they are "spirit and they are life".

storytime · 07-11-2008, 08:57 PM

Ohmi

Ever consider and ask yourself WHY the god of Israel was not and did not claim to be god to the seven nations the Israelites could not slaughter? These seven nations of non Israelites in the land of Canaan were hated by God. God wanted the Israelites to destroy them, every one that had breadth within them. But the Israelites were unable to wipe them out off the face of the earth. So God then said, by the mouth of the prophet of course, that these seven nations were left to aggrevate and trouble Israel for her sins against God.

God also hated Esau, the brother of Jacob. The Edomites[Esau] were not considered "a people" of God. There were thousands of people God hated, just because they were non Israelites. And God did not change, according to the scripture story.

storytime · 07-11-2008, 09:26 PM

The New Jerusalem Temple is measured in men as sealed in the 144,000. 12,000 in a foursquare Temple and served in gates to the city. None are Gentile.

Without the proper wedding garment (circumcision and law) there is a casting out from the wedding to the bridegroom. Gentiles were excluded from the body called Christ. Unless of course, they chose to convert to Judaism. Jesus didn't preach anything other than his Judaism. "Salvation is of the Jews". The way, truth and lifestyle Jesus knew was in his Judaism. Resurrection to life was in Judaism. Being "born-again" was a Jewish revelation of awakening to ones redemption and forgiveness.

Gentile (non Jewish people) had no need for redemption or forgiveness as they had no laws that demanded obedience to the tradition of Jews. The Gentiles were lawless and without any covenants. Gentiles were free from the religion of Jews.

So why did Peter and Paul decide to include Gentiles? I like to read conspiracies so I'll take a wild guess. I think the whole Gentile "friendship" was a deceitful strategy in purpose to protect Jerusalem from harm. Bait the ignorant Gentiles with supernatural BS and promise them an afterlife. It eventually worked, don't you think?

ohmi · 07-12-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

The New Jerusalem Temple is measured in men as sealed in the 144,000. 12,000 in a foursquare Temple and served in gates to the city. None are Gentile.

You have forgotten the outer court :-

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles:

Quote:

Without the proper wedding garment (circumcision and law) there is a casting out from the wedding to the bridegroom. Gentiles were excluded from the body called Christ.

That is true in this world, but you are completely ignoring the purpose of creating a perfect royal priesthood from Israel, you are ignoring that a priesthood is created to serve the people ... read Rev 7:9-10, the many put on their white robes in the new earth kingdom and are saved through ministry by Israel ... the many are gentile sinners resurrected at teh second resurrection and saved by works in the new earth , not by grace of the new covenant with Israel.

Quote:

Unless of course, they chose to convert to Judaism.

Judaism is corrupted , strangers only have to join Israel, not accept corrupted Judaism.

Quote:

Jesus didn't preach anything other than his Judaism. "Salvation is of the Jews".

Salvation is of the Jews, not of Judaism ... and the Jews are reproved of their current disbelief in Jesus as the messiah by the remnant of the House of Israel, the lost nation :-

Deuteronomy 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

Quote:

The way, truth and lifestyle Jesus knew was in his Judaism. Resurrection to life was in Judaism. Being "born-again" was a Jewish revelation of awakening to ones redemption and forgiveness.

Jesus heavily criticised the teachings of the Jewish hierarchy , he did not accept their corrupted Judaism , and Judaism has gotten more corrupt since then , never reproving itself to the Law and the Prophets , always leaving out the bits that don't fit with 'tradition' , always divided and thus corrupted [unlike God's teaching].

Quote:

Gentile (non Jewish people) had no need for redemption or forgiveness as they had no laws that demanded obedience to the tradition of Jews. The Gentiles were lawless and without any covenants. Gentiles were free from the religion of Jews.

The gentiles need no covenant of grace or Law of Love since they are all freed from sin in death and simply cannot be redeemed in this life, but Jesus proclaims that countless many of them will be saved in the next life [Rev 7:9-10]

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Quote:

So why did Peter and Paul decide to include Gentiles? I like to read conspiracies so I'll take a wild guess. I think the whole Gentile "friendship" was a deceitful strategy in purpose to protect Jerusalem from harm. Bait the ignorant Gentiles with supernatural BS and promise them an afterlife. It eventually worked, don't you think?

God indeed deluded the gentiles and most of the Jews and most of the House of Israel , the irony is that most folks are so egotistical that they don't believe it applies to them, even though it is written that all the world [bar only the 144,000 saints] will be deluded [Rev 13:3- 8], will follow false beliefs :-

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

storytime · 07-14-2008, 12:39 PM

"You have forgotten the outer court".

No, you have failed to understand why it was "given to Gentiles". The purpose was in their identity as "sojourners", visitors. The Temple remained off limits to uncircumcised people.

Gentiles had the option of converting to Judaism or remain outside that tradition.

Judaism wasn't corrupted. Those Jews who worshipped in the manner of Gentiles were corrupted.

Judaism in it's form at that time had different tribal sons called "Jews". Paul is an example. He was a Benjamite and a Jew. Nichodemus was a Levite and a Jew. All were considered "Israel". The kingdom of Israel was set in sons named. Jerusalem was the place where God chose to place his name, Jerusalem, city of the great king-David. Lawful place of Temple worship was at Jerusalem. All the people of Israel were expected to come to Jerusalem for feast day observances every year. Those who would not "come up" to Jerusalem "would receive no rain". Sons of Jacob in Egypt were expected to attend services at Jerusalem. Paul goes back and forth to Jerusalem in observance and worship at the Temple there. He doesn't speak of attending Temple anywhere else throughout his journeys.

"God indeed deluded the Gentiles.."

No, God had no concern for people who were not his own. The story is about Israel and God's cursing and blessing on them. What you are reading about is a tribal god and not a universal god. Those who were not called Israel were not a people of God.

All people not called Israel are free from transgression[sin]. "Sin" is defined by law for Israel, and as all other non Israeli people were never given any laws at Sinai, there is no "worldly" transgression of non-existent laws. The world is not guilty of transgression of laws of Israel. Only Israeli's can be judged as sinners in their own laws.

Are you a sinner of Israeli laws?

storytime · 07-14-2008, 12:49 PM

Yep, I must be egotistical because the way I read the bible story is that it doesn't apply to any people other than to whom it is written to and for - namely Israel, aka "the Jews".

I also consider myself not a sinner.

07-14-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

The scripture has more 'authority' than other documents simply because it was written by saints and prophets of God .

The pastorals were forged in Paul's name.

Do you think forged documents have more 'authority' than genuine ones ?

Iasion

gurugeorge · 07-14-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

I believe the archeological evidence for Christian catacombs in Rome is that they begin to appear (as opposed to purely Jewish ones) after 100 AD, correct? I would therefore date the rise of Christianity to about that time, and I understand that puts the creation of the gospels out that far, at least, too, including GMark.

Now, all I have to do is prove it. :wave:

Hi Chuck, and welcome to our midst. As Andrew states, the small and questionable archaeological evidence that is available places the Roman "Christian" catacombs after 150 AD.
I say "questionable" because these early allegedly "Christian" remnants are so identified on quite ambiguous grounds, that is the inscriptions are cataloged as being of "Christian" origin even though there is really nothing in the inscriptions that is specifically and identifiably exclusive to "Christian" usages.(of the JC type)
Pete Brown (Mountainman) has posted exhaustive documentation and analysis here on each and every one of these claimed as "Christian" artifacts.
The other problem with identifying "Christian" artifacts is that the words "Christian", "Christ" and the similar "Chrestos" were evidently employed somewhat freely and interchangeably by a diverse populace.
Thus there were many "Christs" known and revered, other than that Nazarene of NT fame, and there were also "Christians" that belonged to cults having very little, if anything at all, to do with, or any connections with that evolving form of religion that ultimately became the orthodox "Christian" religion.

So the term "Christian" as it is understood today, was not then so constrained. IOW we have came to commonly understand a "Christian" as one being a follower of "Jesus Christ", The Jew, however that interpretation would not have been necessarily indicated in many pre-Constantinian usages of the terms.
Constantine forced his particular form of "Christianity" by the banning, persecuting, and murderously exterminating the practitioners of any of these other myriad earlier forms of the "Christ" and of "Christianity"
This being so, there would have been Roman "Christians" around who were not disciples of "Jesus Christ", nor followers of Pauline theology, right up to the point of Constantine's instituted extermination campaigns of 324 + AD, thus it is to be expected that prior to this, these non-JC worshipping "Christians" (ie "good men") would have left behind burial sites and tombs, those remnants however, are no evidence for either a beliefe in "Jesus Christ", or for the early existence of that form of religion now recognized as Christianity.

This is good stuff. I think you and Pat Cleaver are on to something. It might help to shift the paradigm and try on for size the idea that Jewish Christianity was but one form of Christianity, a form that through a series of accidents became the representative form of this broad, loose religious ... movement would be too strong a word, but "tendency" perhaps?

The really deep hypothesis (which I think Freke & Gandy put forward) would be that what was "in the air" was a general exotericisation of the Mysteries. That is to say the idea of a personal and mystical religion was coming out from under its previous oath of secrecy, out in a public form - coming "out of the closet" as it were.

Then Jewish Christianity fits in, quite nicely, as a specifically Jewish version of this "in the air" phenomenon. Judaism had always been something more of a personal religion. It was, like many another religion, the cult of a people, true, but it also had, for the devout Jew, the possibility of a face-to-face relationship with the Ultimate.

One might posit that the original Jerusalem crowd was a bunch of fairly cosmopolitan mystics and visionaries who thought to use the Jewish/Samaritan concept of a Messiah as a vessel to imbue with this "Christ principle" (instead of the Christ principle being based on some local cult deity universalised, as with the Mysteries in general). This sat quite happily with the coincidence that "anointed one" was exactly the title of the Jewish paragon.

IOW the Jerusalem originators envisioned an entity that blended some of the Jewish expectations, but inverted them, played with them, and also embodied the sort of promise of personal salvation given by other deities of the Mysteries.

IOW, when Greeks heard "anointed one" from this new Jewish religion, they would have heard it as a variant of the "Christianity" espoused by their local "Christians" (although they wouldn't be called that all the time, they'd be called devotees of Serapis or whatever - most likely, it was the perfected cultist who was "a Christ"- the man or woman who had lived a saintly life according to their precepts - I think this may be shown on tombstone inscriptions, but I can't swear to it.).

Something like that anyway.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2008, 02:16 PM	#111
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	The "second death" was as the first, separation from God, to become "as though a person had not been, as though a person had not existed". So Jesus said, "ye must be born again". Ignorance provided a rebirth, a return to the fold of Israel as a person of God. The thousand year reign is bogus emphasis on the gathering of people. There is nothing comparable in OT. Have you considered that Jesus was a false prophet? Even comparable to the serpent in the Garden if not even one and the same? Both the serpent and Jesus promised life to people, .. "ye shall not surely die, and follow me and ye shall never die".

07-11-2008, 08:57 PM	#114
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Ohmi Ever consider and ask yourself WHY the god of Israel was not and did not claim to be god to the seven nations the Israelites could not slaughter? These seven nations of non Israelites in the land of Canaan were hated by God. God wanted the Israelites to destroy them, every one that had breadth within them. But the Israelites were unable to wipe them out off the face of the earth. So God then said, by the mouth of the prophet of course, that these seven nations were left to aggrevate and trouble Israel for her sins against God. God also hated Esau, the brother of Jacob. The Edomites[Esau] were not considered "a people" of God. There were thousands of people God hated, just because they were non Israelites. And God did not change, according to the scripture story.

07-11-2008, 09:26 PM	#115
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	The New Jerusalem Temple is measured in men as sealed in the 144,000. 12,000 in a foursquare Temple and served in gates to the city. None are Gentile. Without the proper wedding garment (circumcision and law) there is a casting out from the wedding to the bridegroom. Gentiles were excluded from the body called Christ. Unless of course, they chose to convert to Judaism. Jesus didn't preach anything other than his Judaism. "Salvation is of the Jews". The way, truth and lifestyle Jesus knew was in his Judaism. Resurrection to life was in Judaism. Being "born-again" was a Jewish revelation of awakening to ones redemption and forgiveness. Gentile (non Jewish people) had no need for redemption or forgiveness as they had no laws that demanded obedience to the tradition of Jews. The Gentiles were lawless and without any covenants. Gentiles were free from the religion of Jews. So why did Peter and Paul decide to include Gentiles? I like to read conspiracies so I'll take a wild guess. I think the whole Gentile "friendship" was a deceitful strategy in purpose to protect Jerusalem from harm. Bait the ignorant Gentiles with supernatural BS and promise them an afterlife. It eventually worked, don't you think?

07-14-2008, 12:39 PM	#117
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	"You have forgotten the outer court". No, you have failed to understand why it was "given to Gentiles". The purpose was in their identity as "sojourners", visitors. The Temple remained off limits to uncircumcised people. Gentiles had the option of converting to Judaism or remain outside that tradition. Judaism wasn't corrupted. Those Jews who worshipped in the manner of Gentiles were corrupted. Judaism in it's form at that time had different tribal sons called "Jews". Paul is an example. He was a Benjamite and a Jew. Nichodemus was a Levite and a Jew. All were considered "Israel". The kingdom of Israel was set in sons named. Jerusalem was the place where God chose to place his name, Jerusalem, city of the great king-David. Lawful place of Temple worship was at Jerusalem. All the people of Israel were expected to come to Jerusalem for feast day observances every year. Those who would not "come up" to Jerusalem "would receive no rain". Sons of Jacob in Egypt were expected to attend services at Jerusalem. Paul goes back and forth to Jerusalem in observance and worship at the Temple there. He doesn't speak of attending Temple anywhere else throughout his journeys. "God indeed deluded the Gentiles.." No, God had no concern for people who were not his own. The story is about Israel and God's cursing and blessing on them. What you are reading about is a tribal god and not a universal god. Those who were not called Israel were not a people of God. All people not called Israel are free from transgression[sin]. "Sin" is defined by law for Israel, and as all other non Israeli people were never given any laws at Sinai, there is no "worldly" transgression of non-existent laws. The world is not guilty of transgression of laws of Israel. Only Israeli's can be judged as sinners in their own laws. Are you a sinner of Israeli laws?

07-14-2008, 12:49 PM	#118
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Yep, I must be egotistical because the way I read the bible story is that it doesn't apply to any people other than to whom it is written to and for - namely Israel, aka "the Jews". I also consider myself not a sinner.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.