by Terry 88 Replies latest jw friends
You have demonstrated that the Apostles did NOT THINK JESUS WAS GOD.
Terry,
Do you think the apostles thought of Jesus as the Son of God at least? I suppose I would be quick to write down everything He said when He said it. But, that is in line with our way of thinking. Perhaps writing stuff down wasn't as important back then. I know I would have a great many questions for Him, personally.
more to look at later.....thanks????
Dear Terry (again, peace to you!), I want to start with your concern about the thread deviating from its original track, if I may. Thank you!
I'm interested in hearing people's ideas about WHY we don't have all of JESUS' ACTUAL WORDS quoted as we already do for a very few instances. Why THOSE instances?
Because the original gospels weren't written in Greek; they were written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek. Unfortunately, there were no Greek words/phrases that adequately transliterated what was said in these particular (few) instances. Keep in mind, however, that not ALL that my Lord is recorded to have said... which WAS translated to Greek... is what he actually said, anyway. Indeed, there are some things he NEVER said... and many things he said that were not included at all, let alone accurately translated.
What you consistently overlook (and I can only guess that that is because you WANT to overlook it) is that (1) the Bible was NOT written OR commissioned by God, nor (2) was the NT inspired BY God, excluding the Revelation (the ONLY "scripture" in the NT). I don't get WHY folks... and professed atheists in particular... continue to overlook this TRUTH... other than for the purpose of "baiting" and playing games with so-called "christians" who claim to know what the Bible says/teaches and/or put their undying faith in it. To such "christians" I would say, "Can you truly NOT see the folly in putting the Bible up on the pedestal that you do? Can you truly NOT see its fallability... and its lack of inspiration... not only in its contradictions, but in its conflict between the image of God that is Christ... and the "god" it portrays on behalf of Israel? Can you NOT see when it itself TELLS you who the Word of God is... and that it is NOT in it (the Bible) that you must put your trust and faith, but in that Word alone?
Unfortunately, I know the answer to those questions, as well: you MUST put your trust and faith in it because... you have nothing... and NO ONE... else. Certainly not the One about whom the scriptures it contains (but not entirely IS) bears witness to.
My sole contention is that without the Bible, where would we learn about God and Jesus?
For some, including me, dear GNeal (the greatest of love and peace to you!)... it would be from the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, Himself... or His Son and Christ, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. I mean, where/how did they learn of them BEFORE there was a Bible? Yes, I learned of God and "Jesus" from the Bible, indirectly through others, I guess (although I have to say that I HEARD about them long before I was old enough to READ about them - but, sure, apparently others read about them. Though... knowing what I know NOW, I'm not so sure of that anymore, either. I think the lion's share of people who put their faith "in the Bible" haven't a CLUE as to what's actually "in the Bible" but only mimic/parrot what they hear others say is in there. I digress.)
Everything, as you say, that we think we know comes from the Bible and from the distortions of our preachers, teachers, commentaries, Seminaries.
That is true for some, yes, Terry, but not all. NONE of what I've shared here over the years has come from the Bible. True, much of it is IN the Bible, but it didn't come to me from that source. It came to me from my Lord... who later showed me where it was in the Bible (if it indeed IS in the Bible, for not all of it is)... for the purpose of support for those who need to see it in writing (because they lack the FAITH it takes to hear it from him).
However, when we try to unhitch our wagon (so to speak) from that lost Wagon Train we are left in the middle of hostile wilderness.
Not true, not at all. When we actually unhitch... we are led... to fountains of water: holy spirit. It is only a "wilderness" when we either loss faith that we WILL be led to the "promised land"... is when we look back to where we once were and begin longing, again, for the "leeks and cucumbers" we once "ate." Spoiled, rotten, tainted, perhaps even poisoned although such were!
We are surrounded by religions! Relgions based on_____________fill in the blank, but, taking deadly aim at getting you and me to agree or else.
YES!!! And what has the result of religion BEEN?!! Problem is, far beyond religion's violence, tyranny, oppression, genocide, corruption, adultery, etc., is that they have YOU... and those like you... BELIEVING that THEY are the ONLY way to know God. Since you MUST reject them (of course, you must!)... YOU believe you MUST reject the Most Holy One of Israel, too! You sit on your laurels thinking you've outsmarted them by no longer believing in them and no longer allowing them to have any hold on you. What you DON'T see is that YOU are the one who was outsmarted. Because although religion MIGHT want your body... because it certainly wants your money... it's leader and originator... wants your SPIRIT! He wants you to "curse God... and DIE"... and it is religion that has led you to that very point. They have done their job, Terry. Whether you can admit/see that... or not.
You think you are free of them, and perhaps you are. But in the end, it is their leader's purpose that has been served, not yours.
There is SOMETHING about the fragility of humanity which necessitates insisting there is SOMEBODY HIGHER IN CHARGE and at the same time insisting that IT CAN BE KNOWN but OPERATES with AUTHORITY through .....X (whoever is speaking to you pointing that finger at your nose.)
This is not accurate. The more accurate statement is that there is something about the stupidity of mankind that necessitates insisting that there BE somebody higher in charge... and that somebody be another HUMAN. Even though no one can say they are better then another. But it is man's WILL and DESIRE... to be RULED... and by MAN. Didn't start out that way, didn't have to BE that way. Man chose that way.
And so we see the results of that. Yet, we want to blame God. Even those who claim we don't believe in God... blame God. Where is the "intelligence" in THAT???
I would submit to you that NOBODY KNOWS a damn thing because there is NOTHING TO KNOW!
I submit that I would agree as to the first part (i.e., nobody of US knows a damn thing, and I have professed on MANY occasions that I don't know jack)... but that you are very wrong as to the second. What we DO know is SO minute to what can... and will... BE known.
Bible, Koran, Torah, Rig Vedas, Buddah, etc. ARE ALL human concoctions totally unprovable and dangerous to rational minds.
I am confused as to how something can be dangerous to a rational mind (irrational, perhaps), but I absolutely agree that they are all human concoctions. Which is why I keep trying to tell folks that one must walk by FAITH... and not by sight! There is a REASON why I haven't written a book, dear one, and why I tell folks do NOT print out and save what I post, and why I haven't sat down and written a "new" Bible version. There IS a making of many books, as well as much devotion to them! It IS wearisome to the flesh! If folks TRULY want to know... they only need ASK; not read a book, any book. But... reading books is what folks like to do. You of all people should know that.
The fact that people SEEK COMFORT and with placebo efficiency OBTAIN COMFORT is no argument for validity.
That fact that they seek comfort means... and results... in NOTHING... unless they seek... and receive... it from one who can truly GRANT such comfort. No priest, elder, rabbi, pope, pastor, minister, reverend, etc., can truly do this... at least not permanently. If so, you would HAVE such persons because all one would need to do is go, get comforted... and then move on. That they have to keep going BACK (oh, and put something in the box, plate, dish... to "pay" for such comfort)... should tell folks something. Should.
The ACTUAL WORDS of Jesus link us DIRECTLY with his Mind. The LOSS of Jesus' actual words is stark evidence we are in the hands of OTHER MINDS with other agendas.
In THAT case, ALL of his recorded words should be in Aramaic and then folks should learn Aramaic so as to be so "linked." Because... and trust me on this... "something" is almost ALWAYS "lost" when things are translated. Thus, the phrase, "lost in translation." The BEST, if not the ONLY way to truly understand one's mind through his words is to hear and understand it in the language it was spoken.
The alternative? Two main ones: 1.Think for yourself or 2.Pretend God is talking directly TO YOU.
First, the Most Holy One of Israel rarely... and I do mean rarely... talks directly to ANYONE. But... why the word "pretend"? Because it hasn't occurred for you? Heck, I've never been to the moon, but I don't think that those who claim they have were pretending. And please don't give me that "they took photos" response: there are those who seriously question the authenticity of it all. I do not, however, and NOT based on photos but based on man's desire to "own" everything he can get his hands on/lay claim to. The planting of the U.S. flag was proof enough to ME that they went. Because all it says is that "We now own this, too!"
In both the Gospels and Revelation the NT Jesus promises to come back and destroy human civilization...remember his quantifying creedo 'you must be born again' as the survivors or the saved. Revelation is particularly fun, he promises to wipe us out not once but twice. Lovely guy.
Dear, dear designs, peace to you! You really should stop making up what you think is in the Bible; it really undermines your credibility. Sometimes (like now) you throw stuff out there that is SO off the wall that you sound like a 19 th century plains dwelling illiterate who relied on the traveling pastor... who could barely read himself... as to what was "in the Bible." Reminds me of M'Deah telling those children left on her doorstop what "the Bible says." So much malarkey it was beyond comical; it actually was kind of sad because I know there are folks who do that: make up fairy tales because they really haven't a clue. Please, take a month (or year) or two... and give it a read yourself.
Doesn't really matter what version, IMHO, but one you can comprehend might be a good idea. Oh, and please don't think I'm advocating the Bible; nothing could be further from the truth. But you if you're going to deride what's in it, you should at least attempt to be accurate.
LOVE is the strongest possible reaction we have to our own particulars: taste, ideas, prejudices, information (true or not), culture and viewpoint.
YOUR definition of love, dear Terry, perhaps. I would venture to say, however, that what you call "love" is not a reaction but is actually "desire"... and the two are not the same. Simply by reason of your reference to "our own particulars." Love... does not look out for its own interest. Desire, on the other hand, tends to put our own particulars first and foremost.
LOVE proceeds FROM...........and does not ORIGINATE.
Love can only proceed FROM... the place it originates, dear one. For some, it originates in them. While I realize that there are a lot of people who say they didn't know love... or that they could love... until they had a child, a whole LOT of people love even before that. And such love doesn't even have to be for a child, indeed a relative of any level. Sometimes it really is just what is inside a person... proceeds from that person... and, for purposes of this world, originated in that person (I say this world because for ME, although I thought I had/knew love... I learned that I didn't and the love I NOW have originated outside of me... from my Lord. He taught me it and gave it to me, so that I could truly share it with others, much than I ever did before).
Meaning what? Once we are shaped by the people and ideas we come from (in the worst case: distorted and abused by...you could say....or misinformed by) our attachment to those influences triggers emotions. The strongest of these emotions is LOVE.
What of those people who love... NOT because it's TRUE, but because "it's the right thing to do"? For example, those who believe "Family, no matter what"? What of those people who have all of the right conditions and absolutely no distortion, abuse, etc., but still can't/don't love?
Warped people LOVE drugs, perversions and violence. Not all LOVE is created equal!
Sorry, but these don't love such things but desire the "results" they bring. Almost every drunk, drug addict, abuser, etc., HATES what they do... themselves for doing it... the impetus/triggers... as well as the actual act. They desire the "thrill", "rush", "high", whathaveyou DOING such things brings. But, they don't love that, either. Anyone of them would stop and be "normal" if they could conquer the DESIRE. However, since you now say not all love is created equal, I think we must agree that what you perceive to be love... may not be what others perceive it to be. May not be love at all, actually, but only that you believe that is what love is.
I think about the idea that we must believe in Christ to be saved. Does believing in Christ mean we must believe in the man, Jesus, or in His ways? This is an important question for me.
It is an important question, dear one and it means, simply, that we believe he is the Son of God, so that although he was put to death in the flesh he was raised... by means of God's blood that is in him, holy spirit, and so is alive and NOT dead... such that he stands as a precursor to the promise of the resurrection, so that any who put faith in him... and DEMONSTRATE that FAITH by (1) listening to him when he speaks to them, and (2) demonstrating such LISTENING by doing what he instructs, including and most particularly, responding to the invitation to enter into the New Covenant of which he is Mediator, which covenant is (a) RATIFIED by the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood... which works toward the healing of such one's spirit so that they CAN live and not be destroyed... and (a) DEMONSTRATED by one's efforts to FULFILL THE LAWS of that covenant, THROUGH LOVE... for (1) Christ; (2) one's own flesh (spouse/children); (3) brother; (4) neighbor; (5) stranger... and (6) enemy... ALL... AS ONE LOVES ONESELF.
It is not hocus pocus, dear one. It is not smoke and mirrors. It is not a mystery. It is simple... ABC... 123. Now, of course, some will ask, "Aren't there those who do these latter things anyway, without any need for such a Covenant?" The answer would be, yes. Yes, there are. But the Covenant is for ISRAEL... and all those of the nations who go with HER. It is a Covenant... for a kingdom.
Does one have to be in such a covenant, literally, to gain life? No. In order to co-rule with Christ and stand in place of Israel who lost the right to be God's chosen people and a holy nation, one must be in this covenant. One cannot CHOOSE to be in it, however; one must be CHOSEN. These are 144,000 from among the sons of Israel... AS WELL AS a great crowd from EVERY nation, tribe, tongue, and people.
BUT... there is also hope for those who are NOT in that covenant. As dear tec (peace to you, dear one!) pointed out... there are the sheep that these rule OVER under that kingdom reign. They are like Rahab who, although not an Israelite and even more, a prostitute, showed her love for the Israelites... and faith in their God... by hiding the spies. She had NOT entered into the Covenant at Sinai; yet, because of her good act toward God's people, she saved not only herself... but her entire household.
So, should such folks do like the JWs and attach themselves to those who profess to be "anointed" and do "good" to them by following their lead? No. Those folks know, don't they, what they're supposedly doing? Yet, the sheep my Lord addressed had NO IDEA as to when they had done good to HIM... because they did not remember when they did good to his brothers. Why? Because they were/are simply the kind of people who do good... to ALL. Regardless of whether they claim to be anointed or a brother of Christ, etc.
And that is as it should be. MANY claim to be "christs/christians" (anointed) including myself, your servant. And while I do not lie to you about that, others will say the same (that they're not lying). So, how to you know? Unless you have been privileged to actually witness a demonstration of a gift of the holy spirit... you really DON'T. So, it would behoove you... it would behoove ALL, including me, your servant... to do good... to ALL. Because unbeknownst to them, SOME... even entertained angels.
I hope this helps... all... and, again, I bid you all peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Very thought provoking. Thanks.
Because the original gospels weren't written in Greek; they were written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek.
Says who?
Greek was the international language of the Roman Empire, and was spoken publicly in the majority of Roman provinces. Aramaic was the native language of most Jews living in Judea, Galilee and Babylon. But Aramaic was typically restricted to communication among family members behind closed doors. In public they spoke Greek. The same was true of Latin - it was spoken within the homes of native Romans, but they spoke Greek in public discourse, even on the streets of Rome.
Additionally, Galilee was not the small-town rural backwater that Victorian scholars imagined. Galilee was heavily Hellenized. They were surrounded by several major Greek-speaking cities, and nearly all of their commerce depended on the Greek-speaking communities and Greek-speaking merchants in the region.
In the case of Jesus, any public speaker at the time would have delivered his discourses in Greek, not Aramaic. Several members of Jesus' inner circle went by their Greek names, and Jesus himself (according to the Gospel of John) spent as much as two years traveling in the Greek Decapolis bordering Galilee.
The internal evidence in the Gospels also suggests that many of the statements attributed to Jesus were originally composed in Greek, and the Gospels go out of their way to point out the few times that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic in public. When Jesus quoted the Jewish Scriptures he quoted the Greek translation word-for-word (except when he quoted the book of Job, which was arguably an inferior translation).
Among the Jews, the majority of the population was scattered all over the Roman world, and Greek was their first language. Aramaic was only the first language of Jews in Judea, Galilee and Babylon. Everywhere else they spoke Greek in public and private conversations, and even used a Greek translation of the Scriptures.
So it is not surprising that the Gospels were written in Greek. There was a rumor for a while that Matthew may have been composed in Aramaic, but there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate that view, and it has been abandoned by modern academic consensus. The only reason anyone believed it in the first place is that a single fragment of a 2nd century Christian writing mentioned that Matthew wrote an account of the life of Christ in Hebrew.
(yahoo answers)
The alternative? Two main ones: 1.Think for yourself or 2.Pretend God is talking directly TO YOU.
First, the Most Holy One of Israel rarely... and I do mean rarely... talks directly to ANYONE.
But... why the word "pretend"? Because it hasn't occurred for you?
Heck, I've never been to the moon, but I don't think that those who claim they have were pretending. And please don't give me that "they took photos" response: there are those who seriously question the authenticity of it all. I do not, however, and NOT based on photos but based on man's desire to "own" everything he can get his hands on/lay claim to. The planting of the U.S. flag was proof enough to ME that they went. Because all it says is that "We now own this, too!"
Public discourse is filled to the brim and overflowing with talking heads eager to report that they've received a "word" of faith.
Just exactly how they know this is as smarmy as the JW anointed and their "just knowing" claims. Extraordinary claims require
EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
Operating without evidence is what belief, Faith and supernatural claims are all about! In other words: pretending something is real.
I lived and walked in that world far too long! It was mental illness on wheels!
There are a boatload of damaged people discussing the blowback from this nonsense. Licking their wounds and trying to make sense
out of what bus hit them as a result of accepting without evidence pie in the sky messages from God.
The explanation you give of going to the moon is completely lost on me. We either went and came back or we are lying about it.
The thousands of people who participated and documented that participation constitutes hard evidence. That convinces me.
Where is the hard evidence for people claiming (yes: pretending) God talks to them???
Terry,
Do you think the apostles thought of Jesus as the Son of God at least?
Why would any self-respecting Jew ever think in his wildest dreams that a Rabbi was actually God?
That would be blasphemy.
The term "Son of God" doesn't mean to us what it meant back then. Jesus strongly preferred a completely OPPOSITE term for himself:
SON OF MAN.
If you spent day in and day out with somebody who referred to his own person as SON OF MAN why would you leap to the conclusion
he didn't mean SON OF MAN but really mean SON OF GOD??
From Wikipedia
Aramaic is a Semitic language belonging to the Afroasiaticlanguage family (etym. language of Aram, [ 3 ] an ancient region in central Syria). Within this family, Aramaic belongs to the Semitic subfamily, and more specifically, is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and modern Hebrew alphabets.
During its 3,000-year history, [ 4 ] Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BCE – 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, the Gospel of Matthew, [ 5 ] was the language spoken by Jesus, and is the main language of the Talmud. [ 6 ]
Aramaic's long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes treated as dialects. Therefore, there is no one singular Aramaic language, but each time and place has had its own variation. Aramaic is retained as a liturgical language by certain Eastern Christian churches, in the form of Syriac, the Aramaic variety by which Eastern Christianity was diffused, whether or not those communities once spoke it or another form of Aramaic as their vernacular, but have since shifted to another language as their primary community language.
Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Mandean groups of West Asia [ 7 ] —most numerously by the Assyrians (also known as Chaldo-Assyrians) in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and also Mandic—that have all retained use of the once dominant lingua franca despite subsequent language shifts experienced throughout the Middle East. The Aramaic languages are considered to be endangered. [ 8 ]
If you spent day in and day out with somebody who referred to his own person as SON OF MAN why would you leap to the conclusion he didn't mean SON OF MAN but really mean SON OF GOD??....Terry
Good point....being a strech from Son of Man ( Jesus had no oejection being refered to by that title ) to Son of God. There was another title used Son of David. The Gosples indicate Jesus DID NOT LIKE that title being used to describe him as it had ploitical overtones and several times he admonished the user not to refer to him in that manner.
Of the four Gosples John's gospel has the strongest fondation for even thinking Jesus was THE SON OF GOD, also The Gospel of John is a subtle Gnostic description of Jesus and his ministry.
Do we have the actual "words of Jesus". No, Paul's writings came frist not the Gospels. A crital and historical study of the NT bears this out with the conclusin the Gospels were writen at leasst 70 yrs after the fact.
It's all magic, Terry. Whatever logic you lay down will be dismissed with "it's magic and spirit fluffiness".......Unshakled
There you go Terry logic has no place in this disscusion, along with historical evedence, critical redaction, or any other method of examining Jesus, or the NT Church....Sad, but true....
Shelby, get over yourself. The quotes are quotes from the NT, this supposed Savior and messiah said what he said about 'left hand right hand' stuff.
All the johnny come latelies just don't like what he had to say about ending human civilization so they are hell bent on reinventing a Jesus Lite
Tag, your turn
