We wouldn't expect the Creator of Life to be dead. Why worship a dead person ?
The irony is so pointed you could nail a god to the cross with it.
i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.
but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.
scripture says he's the creator.
We wouldn't expect the Creator of Life to be dead. Why worship a dead person ?
The irony is so pointed you could nail a god to the cross with it.
i've been recently reinstated & am very happy about it.
i do love righteous (love & justice) and i do hate wickedness ( selfishness & sin).
i do love jehovah and the bible truths & wisdom.
Please talk to your doctor about your feelings, he/she couldn't care less about your religion, they care about your well being. You may discover with a professional's help that your feelings are a medical condition and largely manageable. No one is embarrassed about friends and family that seek help, those days are thankfully long past. Be well.
are any or all of the gb from jewish descent?.
why are they so fascinated with following ancient jewish 'principles' ?.
isa 43:10, 44:8 ' you are my witnesses ' which they based their religious identity on, jehovah's witnesses, yet those verses address the jews, not christians, which they profess to be.. jesus said in ac 1:8 'you will be witnesses of me ', .
the faithful slave is considered god's channel of communication.
( though not inspired of god ) does anyone else find the use of the word channel interesting in this regard?
from where i am sitting it denotes spiritism.
It might also be worth noting that while the author of Hebrew says that in former times God spoke through prophets etc. but now was speaking through Jesus, he never once quotes Jesus. He repeatedly quotes the OT as the words and actions of Jesus. What the author was saying is that the 'enlightened' way to read the OT (esp.Psalms) was to perceive passages as referring to Jesus.
the faithful slave is considered god's channel of communication.
( though not inspired of god ) does anyone else find the use of the word channel interesting in this regard?
from where i am sitting it denotes spiritism.
Hebrews 1: 1 - 2 God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious. The writer was similarly asserting that 'Jesus' was speaking through him and fellow church leaders. Jesus' message was in part that those were the 'last days' 2000 years ago.
clement of alexandria.
the stromata, or miscellanies.
book vi.
Chapt 5
And further, that the same God that furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks, he shows. And it is clear from this. Accordingly, then, from the Hellenic training, and also from that of the law are gathered into the one race of the saved people those who accept faith: not that the three peoples are separated by time, so that one might suppose three natures, but trained in different Covenants of the one Lord, by the word of the one Lord. For that, as God wished to save the Jews by giving to them prophets, so also by raising up prophets of their own in their own tongue, as they were able to receive God's beneficence, He distinguished the most excellent of the Greeks from the common herd, in addition to "Peter's Preaching," the Apostle Paul will show, saying:
"Take also the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, how it is shown that God is one, and how the future is indicated. And taking Hystaspes, read, and you will find much more luminously and distinctly the Son of God described, and how many kings shall draw up their forces against Christ, hating Him and those that bear His name, and His faithful ones, and His patience, and His coming."
There is a ton of stuff in passages like this one that merit investigating. My primary point of this thread was to illustrate that the Greek culture and learning was held in such esteem that leading Christians assumed their God had in fact been responsible for much of the Greek understanding. God had revealed himself to the Greeks just as he had to the Jews. It was all the same God. Of course they now regarded this ancient wisdom as outdated, in light of their present understanding.
The 'Sibyl' here refers to the Sibylline Oracles. A topic that could fill volumes, in short they were ostensibly the prophetic ecstatic utterances of a pagan prophetess but are actually largely Jewish and Christain forgeries. The Oracles of Hystaspes were ostensibly Zoroastrian apocalyptic/ prophetic works, that have also been modified/interpolated by Jewish and Christian hands.
Peter's Preaching that was cited as endorsing the pagan works was another now lost book that was ostensibly by the Apostle Peter. Similarly, the Paul quotation is from another now lost work ostensibly by the Apostle Paul.
6 and he said, it is too small a thing that thou shouldest be servant to me to raise up the sons of jacob, and to bring back the netzurei yisroel (preserved of israel,); i will also give thee for ohr goyim, that thou mayest be my yeshuah unto the ketzeh ha’aretz.. 2nd isaiah, actually an anonymous prophet at the time of cyrus, did his best to inspire and hearten his fellow countrymen.
many judahites had lost hope and even lost faith.
the explanations offered by previous prophets, namely that their own sins had resulted in their situation, were not adequate nor convincing.
Luke 22:37 is a quote of Isaiah 53:12.
Yes, I thought that was what you had denied. My fault sorry, quite distracted at the time.
These were applied to Jesus... via retrofitting to try to make sense of what happened to these two great figures of history since neither were supposed to fail in death.
Or the story, including the passion narrative, is a composition woven from texts such as Isaiah servant, Zechariah 13 and other suffering themes from Ps 22, 38,69 just for example. The intertextuality never appears hidden, words of the OT are directly placed in Jesus' mouth, readers must have recognized this.
6 and he said, it is too small a thing that thou shouldest be servant to me to raise up the sons of jacob, and to bring back the netzurei yisroel (preserved of israel,); i will also give thee for ohr goyim, that thou mayest be my yeshuah unto the ketzeh ha’aretz.. 2nd isaiah, actually an anonymous prophet at the time of cyrus, did his best to inspire and hearten his fellow countrymen.
many judahites had lost hope and even lost faith.
the explanations offered by previous prophets, namely that their own sins had resulted in their situation, were not adequate nor convincing.
nor did Jesus claim anything about these in reference to himself as far as we know.
The gospel writers did depict Jesus as explicitly identifying as the SS. E.g. Luke 22:37
For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.”x
6 and he said, it is too small a thing that thou shouldest be servant to me to raise up the sons of jacob, and to bring back the netzurei yisroel (preserved of israel,); i will also give thee for ohr goyim, that thou mayest be my yeshuah unto the ketzeh ha’aretz.. 2nd isaiah, actually an anonymous prophet at the time of cyrus, did his best to inspire and hearten his fellow countrymen.
many judahites had lost hope and even lost faith.
the explanations offered by previous prophets, namely that their own sins had resulted in their situation, were not adequate nor convincing.
P.S. As you said at some point earlier, Jewish religious thought was incredibly diverse. It would not be surprising if an idea arose independently among different groups, however a Christian relationship with the Qumran community has been widely conjectured.
Regardless of any pre Christian or parallel conceptulization, the idea would be counterintuitive for the larger Jewish community. The writers of the Gospels addressed the potential objection for these readers in multiple ways.
Such might be a consequence of the popularization of the mystery faith.
my understanding* is that the un is supposed to be the wild beast of revelation.
the un only came into being after wwii, so what was the beast before the new light came about?
i can't see a speculative organisation like the wt not having an interpretation of the beast before the un came into being.
Achille.....That was a great contribution to the history of this doctrine.
Here's a link that describes the development of the doctrine and near the end of that discussion is a link to more detailed history.