Celsus

Wrong again Amos. "Son of man" would be huios anthropos. Still see the similarity to Barabbas?

Joel

Amos

Well of course I do. Man is the father of the reborn child that grew in wisdom and understanding here soon to be set free from the Jewish Jesus identity that originally was the cause of this understanding.

Infidelettante

Amos, what end? "for Jesus alone"? What does that mean?
Jesus either intended to start a new religion in which case
the Jerusalem church learned nothing from him or they were
right and he intended his followers to remain Jews in thier
practices and lives and Paul made "hay" with something and
someone other than Jesus and Christiaity is his creation.

JT

Amos

Jesus existed only in the myth and cannot start a new religion.

Paul did and he based his story on the mythical Jesus who could have been any-Jew who found the end of Judaism which is Is-ra-el.

The Jerusalem Church did learn nothing from him. In fact they now deny that they crucified him which I think was the best thing they ever did (in the myth) because that makes is a well functionning religion wherein the end is available to its followers.

The Jews look forward to the first coming of Christ and we, as Catholics, look forward to the second coming of Christ. The difference here is that the Jews remain mesmerized by the prophets and we follow the example set by Jesus. This means that "the coming of Christ" is not a Universal event but a religious event that happens to the believer and to the believer only in the mind of the believer.

So there in need to for Israel become a nation under God because Israel is the [first] coming of Christ to the Jew in person.