Is this really faith in life?

a reply to: maes2

It is not rational that Christianity received most of his teachings not from a great people like Saint Peter, but from Paul ! while both of them were living at the same time.

If you read the actual letters of Paul, like Galatians, rather than Acts, you would see that Paul got his understanding of Jesus, the historical person, rather than the risen Christ, directly from Peter.
It would not be "rational", as you put it, if these two people were preaching a different gospel.

. . . they got from converted Jews . . .

As was Peter, also.

Most of your Christian friends believe Jesus would speak Aramaic. Your point is different.

Most Christians have no opinion and the question never crosses their minds.
You might think that Christians generally have that opinion but it is a very vocal minority who are on a mission to spread that propaganda, never questioning it themselves, but believing it like a good cult member.

Do you have any suggestion for this !?

Doing some independent study and reading things from people who are impartial, not pushing an agenda.

a reply to: tetra50

all I can tell you is .. this .. take it for what it is .. and believe it or not..

but.. I've seen the scars on His back He took for us...I was about to commit suicide being at the end of my rope and alone in studio apt after being divorced in my 1st marriage... that was 30 years ago...

a reply to: jmdewey60
I opened Galatians and Paul said :

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Even Paul himself knew that I would not believe him !

I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

He is weird, He describes himself more like a prophet. But a prophet that had no miracle or proof But his own claim !

a reply to: jmdewey60

There is no "Aramaic text".
I'm not sure why people think there is.
What we have is a translation into Aramaic from the original Greek.
There are a few Aramaic words in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it was originally written in Aramaic.

First, this is an excerpt from the Scoffield edition KJV Bible I am familiar with. The link is www.biblestudytools.com...here:

A Panoramic View of the Bible (See also THE PENTATEUCH, Book Introduction, and Notes associated with Genesis 1:1)
The Bible, incomparably the most widely circulated of books, at once provokes and baffles study. Even the non-believer in its authority rightly feels that it is unintelligent to remain in almost total ignorance of the most famous and ancient of books. And yet most, even of sincere believers, soon retire from any serious effort to master the content of the sacred writings. The reason is not far to seek. It is found in the fact that no particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole. For the Bible story and message is like a picture wrought out in mosaics: each book, chapter, verse, and even word forms a necessary part, and has its own appointed place. It is, therefore, indispensable to any interesting and fruitful study of the Bible that a general knowledge of it be gained.

First. The Bible is one book. Seven great marks attest this unity.

Second, as to the Aramaic references I have made, I am taking that information directly from the footnotes accompanying the books of the Bible in the Scoffield edition,which is quite good about telling the time period the particular book was supposedly written and when its author lived, what his status in life was (such as, was he a slave, owned and in service to whom) and the political situation of the times.

Here is some other information about the languages used:

Here

In what language was the Bible first written?
The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.)

During the thousand years of its composition, almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

Tetra

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: tetra50

all I can tell you is .. this .. take it for what it is .. and believe it or not..

but.. I've seen the scars on His back He took for us...I was about to commit suicide being at the end of my rope and alone in studio apt after being divorced in my 1st marriage... that was 30 years ago...

Not that I am questioning your sincerity, but I would ask how you saw these scars?

Second, I am glad Komodo, that this faith works for you.

Third, I am not questioning really that he was sacrificed. Perhaps, to fully understand what I mean, it would be good to re-read my OP.
Tetra

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:34 PM link quote reply a reply to: tetra50 from HanzHenry:

HanzHenry:
the Old Testament is the Torah reworded. and that god is not who people think it is/was. That God loves the sweet aroma of burnt flesh and creepy things like that. hmm. that God was the Bull God --- EL/Moloch/(Saturn EL; i.e. Satan)

There are also verses where this realm (earth) is Satan's domain and that God cast him out of heaven to where exactly? Earth/Below..

The supposed "deception of the world" by Satan isn't something that is going to happen, it already happened.

The evidence is clear to see. This is Why an emissary was sent. .....

so as the story goes, although I gain some enlightenment (Lucifer's tool) from the Bible, it is an incomplete, purposefully misleading and incomplete, numerously edited, and omitted conglomeration of other books. Basically it is a cliff notes book combining SOME cliff notes from other books.

I do agree, HanzHenry that the OT and NT are very different,in style, character and even philosophy.
Language is different as well.

But they are different stories combined to give a full picture, supposedly, of the beginning (Genesis) of God's creation of life and covenant (agreement, promise) with the life he created: the Abrahamic covenant, the twelve tribes of His chosen people, their genealogies, and how the political and environmental landscape affected them….i.e.what happened.

In reading the OT, you will find mention of worshipping a few different Gods: Baal, Molech, etc….
Most sacrificing was related to these Gods. The worship of them is quite clearly cautioned against, as it's the reason, supposedly, the one, true God broke his covenant. He, then, offers ways for "His people" to return to Him….

Of course, this is an over simplification. Within the genaelogical function, is also the story of how David became involved, became a king, and how this relates, then, to the birth of Jesus. It is important because God made a promise to David that His covenant with David's line (the Davidic covenant) would never be broken. Yet, David, himself, was a human man, and lived an imperfect life by traditional, biblical standards. For instance, I believe it to be the story of Bathsheba, that he observed her through a window bathing, fell in lust with her, sent her husband off to fight in war so he could move into his place, perhaps hoping he'd get killed.

He does, however, later, repent and ask forgiveness for this of God. The Book of Psalms is primarily devoted to David's struggles in life and search for faith.

On the whole, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the Bible as incomplete, Cliff's notes, just to summarize your critique. I quoted above the foreword of the Scoffield edited, 1917, KVJ, called "A Panoramic View of the Bible," which cautions it should be read and taken as a whole, not broken down into parts. In the study of it, I've found this advice to be of particular importance.

Many, for instance, concentrate more on the New Test., as it follows the OT, and Jesus' philosophies are very simple, as has been pointed out in this thread many times already. But I think the OT is just as important.

What is true, is it has been changed, edited, re-edited, and some of it, lost. And the translations cannot always be counted on, as some words in the languages it was written in, have no English equivalent. If you read different versions, such as NIV vs. KJV, the same chapters in English are worded completely differently, and so take on different meaning, as well.

The purpose I intended in this thread was to explore those issues, and see how the Bible has been a tool of political and social control, and further, Jesus' life and sacrifice. We live in a paradigm which is heavily informed and influenced by this, I think, and many feel that religion gets more people killed than it helps through faith. Some people feel its outright misinformation designed specifically to control, judge, etc. These issues were a big part of what I wished to explore.

Thanks so much for your comments.
Tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

First, this is an excerpt from the Scofield edition KJV Bible I am familiar with.

That would be the opposite of the " . . . independent study and reading things from people who are impartial, not pushing an agenda." that I mentioned in my last post.
Also it is very old, outdated findings.

. . . it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917.
en.wikipedia.org...

The agenda of this book (Scofield Bible) was pushing the Dispensationalist theories of John Nelson Darby.
Also this is the same general agenda where we get the "sacred name" propaganda, the goal being to undermine confidence in the New Testament, where according to their teaching, it doesn't even get the name of Jesus right, and then you get this idea that the Greek language itself is "pagan", leaving you with the only holy option of studying Hebrew and dwelling on the Old Testament as the only thing reliable.
The ultimate goal back in 1809 was to soften up Christianity to accept the big land grab in Palestine that the Zionists were preparing for even back then.

a reply to: maes2

I opened Galatians and Paul said :

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

When Paul says "gospel", he means it in the sense of the normal usage in the Hellenized empire, a message.
He didn't mean it in the sense that we use it today, to mean a biographical account of Jesus' life.
Paul's message was of the Risen Christ.
While Paul leaned about Jesus' earthly life from Peter, he learned of Christ's heavenly life directly from the risen Jesus, in heaven.
Galatians 1:18
. . . I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
(2011 NIV)

Even Paul himself knew that I would not believe him !

I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

He is weird, He describes himself more like a prophet. But a prophet that had no miracle or proof But his own claim !

Paul gets into that in his letters, that the proof is in the changed lives of those who accept his message.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: tetra50

First, this is an excerpt from the Scofield edition KJV Bible I am familiar with.

That would be the opposite of the " . . . independent study and reading things from people who are impartial, not pushing an agenda." that I mentioned in my last post.
Also it is very old, outdated findings.

. . . it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917.
en.wikipedia.org...

The agenda of this book (Scofield Bible) was pushing the Dispensationalist theories of John Nelson Darby.
Also this is the same general agenda where we get the "sacred name" propaganda, the goal being to undermine confidence in the New Testament, where according to their teaching, it doesn't even get the name of Jesus right, and then you get this idea that the Greek language itself is "pagan", leaving you with the only holy option of studying Hebrew and dwelling on the Old Testament as the only thing reliable.
The ultimate goal back in 1809 was to soften up Christianity to accept the big land grab in Palestine that the Zionists were preparing for even back then.

Well,I'm certainly not pushing an agenda of any kind in this thread, nor trying to support one with my choice of that particular Bible. Did you actually read any of that forward: A Panoramic View?

What speaks to me personally about it is that the Bible should be taken and considered (with the books available and currently included) as a whole, both OT and NT, that the books all complement one another, and expand upon the information. How can one discuss the NT, without the knowledge and history of the OT?

Further, you've just given a very good example of my point, really, in that information is disparate, dependent upon which version, what information you accept and reject, what you're given to read in that particular version….etc. You're attaching and informing us of politics from 1809 to 1917, regarding a specific version, and how it shaped that particular version.

Here's something interesting I found, in regards to the language discussion:

Some minor portions of the Old Testament were penned in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:46-7:28; and two words in Genesis 31:47). Liberal scholars have contended that the Aramaic of the Bible is of late date, hence, those works of the Old Testament containing this dialect (mainly Daniel and Ezra) were thus composed much later than the periods traditionally assigned to them.

It's found HERE
This link is quite interesting.

If the NT is primarily Aramaic,(supposedly the language of Jesus' time) with Greek transliterations, but then there are Aramaic words in Genesis, hmmmmm…..could that, indeed, indicate some editing, or even some adding going back to the beginning--Genesis?

Thanks for helping me illustrate the point.

Further, though, when considering such, it becomes apparent, at least to me, one is usually highly invested in one or the other, the OT or NT. I wonder if you've read much of the Scofield version, just in regards to the excellent footnotes presented, which seek to inform, again, as to the political landscape of the times each book was written to illustrate, supposedly, what the environment was--what life was like--for each writer….

Again, it's just for consideration. I certainly respect your particular view. However, I think it points out obviously how very much is up to the particular reader and how much political infuenced each version through time. Not to mention, to disregard any version based upon it being "old and out of date" when discussing ancient history of this kind, seems a little off to me.
But if we are to understand the importance of the sacrifice of Jesus, surely it is important to understand why HE was important, necessary, where he came from and the history that came before him….
Regards,
tetra50

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: tetra50

all I can tell you is .. this .. take it for what it is .. and believe it or not..

but.. I've seen the scars on His back He took for us...I was about to commit suicide being at the end of my rope and alone in studio apt after being divorced in my 1st marriage... that was 30 years ago...

Not that I am questioning your sincerity, but I would ask how you saw these scars?

Second, I am glad Komodo, that this faith works for you.

Third, I am not questioning really that he was sacrificed. Perhaps, to fully understand what I mean, it would be good to re-read my OP.
Tetra

I had no faith at this time.. my faith was completely broken and shattered into microscopic pieces...!!!

It only takes faith the size of a mustard seed to move a mountain ..but when you have none, you can't see anything but despair, much of how the world looks at itself today and always has... thus the reason why Paul the Apostle calls it .."the Shield of Faith" ...however..

All I can tell you is this..

After laying my head down on the an open Bible with a 10" chef knife at the ready.. I started weeping uncontrollably .. next thing I remember is being in a very dark place, literately ..sitting on my knees at the shores of a lake burning with fire of blue orange flame and lava about 15ft from me...as soon as I realized this .. I remember shouting .."NO..!!"

Within a split second of saying that.. I felt a presence behind me and immediately turned around and when I did .. I knew it was Jesus, he was standing there in stark white un-hooded robe with a golden braided sash which was knotted on this left side which went to the bottom of the robe..

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: manna2

Why is it so difficult to contemplate the adjudication aspects of the sacrifice of the lamb?

Maybe because there isn't any.

Read hebrews. It is all about the law and legal aspect of this sacrifice. The why's and reasoning for the sacrificial lamb.

The "law and legal aspect" is a metaphorical device to explain it in terms understandable to someone already well versed in the Jewish ceremonies connected to the temple.
What Jesus actually did was not a ceremony and he was not performing a ritual.
It would be good to not get caught up in the allegory.

for someone who never misses an opportunity to preach pharasaic type legalism i fail to see your point. He is the Lamb that was made as the sin offering fulfilling the law. The PROPITIATION for sin. Right about now you miss the beauty that surrounds grace and its blessings. Unlike the law that can only lead to death because none can keep it, grace only blesses and only gives life. The only 2 people in the Bible accredited with works that equated to salvation is Abrahamand Phineas. And boy howdy they were serious type works. Now i know how important works are for my true walk with Him but i do not rely on them for the works He performed on my behalf at Calvary. Holy Holy Holy is the Lamb. Who can take from Him the works allready done?

a reply to: tetra50

Well,I'm certainly not pushing an agenda of any kind in this thread, nor trying to support one with my choice of that particular Bible.

I wouldn't think that you were.
They published that book to be mass marketed so everyone would think that they needed one, not realizing that they were being targeted for an early type of mind control.

What speaks to me personally about it is that the Bible should be taken and considered (with the books available and currently included) as a whole, both OT and NT, that the books all complement one another, and expand upon the information. How can one discuss the NT, without the knowledge and history of the OT?

I think less and less so, as I learn more about the Bible, that it wasn't an organic occurrence, but something planned out and executed to create a cohesive type entity to support a certain philosophy, as far as the construction of what we know today as the Old Testament.

Further, you've just given a very good example of my point, really, in that information is disparate, dependent upon which version, what information you accept and reject, what you're given to read in that particular version….etc. You're attaching and informing us of politics from 1809 to 1917, regarding a specific version, and how it shaped that particular version.

You keep saying "version".
It isn't a version but a Bible that is supplemented by references and commentary meant to steer the reader into a certain way of thinking that is conducive to accepting Dispensationalism.

If the NT is primarily Aramaic,(supposedly the language of Jesus' time) with Greek transliterations, but then there are Aramaic words in Genesis, hmmmmm…..could that, indeed, indicate some editing, or even some adding going back to the beginning--Genesis?

The more that the gospels are studied by the biblical scholars who are expert in that field, the more they are inclined to think that Jesus was speaking Greek.
If it was translated to Greek from Aramaic, there would be evidence of that, but there isn't.
It is well known and fairly obvious that the Aramaic versions that we have today were all translated from the Greek.
As for Aramaic being in Genesis, I think the likely explanation is that it was written at a much later date than earlier thought.
There is very persuasive evidence that Genesis and Exodus were very recent additions to the general body of work of what is contained in the OT.

Further, though, when considering such, it becomes apparent, at least to me, one is usually highly invested in one or the other, the OT or NT. I wonder if you've read much of the Scofield version, just in regards to the excellent footnotes presented, which seek to inform, again, as to the political landscape of the times each book was written to illustrate, supposedly, what the environment was--what life was like--for each writer….

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I look for objective books and mainly by academics, preferably at the level of professors or heads of university departments. And I look for the most up to date research. I have invested a considerable amount of money, for my income, in purchasing books, and painstakingly vet them to assure that they are not biased one way or another.

Not to mention, to disregard any version based upon it being "old and out of date" when discussing ancient history of this kind, seems a little off to me.

Again, it's not a "version".
It is a lot of commentary printed in with a standard Bible version.
All that commentary gets outdated because it is based on a degree of knowledge that existed a hundred years ago, an awful lot of which has been since proven wrong.

But if we are to understand the importance of the sacrifice of Jesus, surely it is important to understand why HE was important, necessary, where he came from and the history that came before him….

Hmm. I'm not advocating ignorance.
Dispensationalism makes a lot of claims that are just plain false.
It really doesn't hold up at all when compared to what we know today.
And I could say the same thing about a lot of theological systems, that go way back, some, or most, all the way to the Dark Ages.

a reply to: manna2

for someone who never misses an opportunity to preach pharasaic type legalism i fail to see your point.

"Pharasaic type legalism" is basically what Jesus taught, though he took exception to a lot of their individual findings.
He was of the same sort of "school" even if he never attended a rabbinical school.
The Pharisees taught righteousness, they were just off somewhat on how to attain that exactly.
I think what you are getting at is the other side of Judaism which is the temple cult.
That was another attempt at holiness but by a different route.
It would have been predominantly Sadduceean.

He is the Lamb that was made as the sin offering fulfilling the law.

There is no law that says, "Jesus will be sacrificed to pay for sins".

Right about now you miss the beauty that surrounds grace and its blessings.

I appreciate that I, a gentile, can be a full recipient of God's favor, that is by Grace, and not by my completing a bunch of Jew-specific laws.

Unlike the law that can only lead to death because none can keep it, grace only blesses and only gives life.

The "Law", as referred to in that way by Paul, means the old system that the Jews were following.
Grace is what allows us to be righteous even while not following the Law (as previously defined).

Now i know how important works are for my true walk with Him but i do not rely on them for the works He performed on my behalf at Calvary.

What Jesus did was to make your works acceptable.
What would make them not acceptable would be that they were done by a "sinful" human.
Jesus, being a human and killed as a sinner, being declared righteous by God as evidenced by his resurrection, makes our being human acceptable.

a reply to: jmdewey60
Sorry that I don't really want to discuss "dispensationalism," nor any particular political landscape that shaped one, yes, version, or another.

As I explained in an earlier post, and I can return here and give two passages, chapters, one from a KJV, and one from an NIV, say, or even two differently edited KJV's (which NOTE: These abbreviations with a V at the end, all denote the word….."version") and present them here, showing easily and obviously that the wording for the passages, same chapter and verse, will be completely different---which gives a different meaning, as well, upon reading. I should think such abbreviations being well-known, I wouldn't have to defend my use of the word "version." Nor to explain, to one so well studied, that these different Bibles, express the same passages in completely different way, and clearly add up to different meanings.

I think less and less so, as I learn more about the Bible, that it wasn't an organic occurrence, but something planned out and executed to create a cohesive type entity to support a certain philosophy, as far as the construction of what we know today as the Old Testament.

I wouldn't understand,really, why you would reach this conclusion, only, about the OT, for it's really my point about both the OT, and NT.

It is a lot of commentary printed in with a standard Bible version.
All that commentary gets outdated because it is based on a degree of knowledge that existed a hundred years ago, an awful lot of which has been since proven wrong.

Commentary concerning who was a slave of Nebudchanezzar or Jedediah, (political landscape I referred to), no, hasn't really changed that much.

But this isn't what I was alluding to, really, by version, but the events and "God said….." depicted and contained within the OT and NT which I've already explained, from NIV to KJV, for instance.
But again, these are disagreements which take away from the path of my point in the thread's OP, but there are others here, along with you, discussing other points, and rather than limit any of that, I'd rather say, have at it.

Have a good weekend. Enjoy the thread and discussing what the rest of you will.
tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

. . . these different Bibles, express the same passages in completely different way, and clearly add up to different meanings.

That is why I suggest to anyone who cares enough to want to know what the Bible really says without the filtering, to learn Greek. Do it a little at a time but study it some, every time you read the Bible.

I wouldn't understand,really, why you would reach this conclusion, only, about the OT, for it's really my point about both the OT, and NT.

That may well be true, too, about the NT.
I just don't think that the Bible as a whole was meant to be a single unit, with the OT and the NT being this cohesive entity to promote a single philosophy.
You may think that, and it could be by reading the Scofield Bible, and that is why I brought up Dispensationalism, that (the Bible being a single unit) is what you need to think in order to accept that philosophy.

Commentary concerning who was a slave of Nebudchanezzar or Jedediah, (political landscape I referred to), no, hasn't really changed that much.

Things added in to make it a valuable item to have, at least that was what people would think, coming from a prestigious publishing house, the Oxford University Press, people wouldn't question it.

That may well be true, too, about the NT.
I just don't think that the Bible as a whole was meant to be a single unit, with the OT and the NT being this cohesive entity to promote a single philosophy.
You may think that, and it could be by reading the Scofield Bible, and that is why I brought up Dispensationalism, that (the Bible being a single unit) is what you need to think in order to accept that philosophy.

I must say I tend to see most things that way. Historically,one thing happens, and another appears to happen, and so on. IF cause and effect apply, then it seems necessary to see the picture, to understand what led to what. I think seeing it as a whole,instead of separate parts, may be the only way to try to parse the message, for it's often extremely contradictory… Without knowing what led to what, it's difficult to know what to do, intellectually, with such contradictions. The discussion you are having with manna2, for instance, about works and acts. Yet, in the NT, it is said we will be saved by faith alone.

As for it being "scripted," or inorganic occurrence, as you've put it, again, I will go back to the original point of the thread, here. Perhaps a lot of this current paradigm is scripted and inorganic. Perhaps some is, and some is not.
Maybe most of history is, in fact, as we know it today.

The question then becomes, what purpose would that serve, beyond just control and manipulation. Certainly, the overall message of the Bible seems to be that mankind is inherently capable of only evil without the guidance of a God, or the concept of such.

By the way, I think many miss the irony of Jesus being subjected to sacrifice as the "fulfillment" of the law that the wages of sin are death, being burdened with the sins of others and a fitting sacrifice because of that very innocence, and further, he was giving a message that this particular law, and all these other "commandments," would probably be unnecessary if people simply loved, forgave one another, turned the other cheek, and treated one another as they would be treated. There are many huge ironies, there.

Anyway, back to the question becoming what purpose this would serve, the scripting. As to that, I'd first like to point out the difference between "scripted" and "fake."
Some things may be simply faked, technologically. In other words, are simply not real, and did not occur. I think the Biblical advice "….to have faith in what does not appear to be," is speaking to that possibility, in these times.
But "scripted" events, manipulated and planned to occur, may still really occur.

In considering all these possibilities, I think that's an important point.

If we give the possible planners, or even "God," the benefit of the doubt, we could say He was attempting to save the guilty, allowing them to return to the fold, so to speak, along with the innocent.

But my point in the OP, is, even if that was once the case, this text has primarily been used as a psy-ops, to get us used to the concept of sacrifice, to get us to judge whom is worth sacrificing for, and whose sacrifice means the most, to manipulate us in all manner of ways, and give men power over other men and women. I might add, to get us to believe and accept without question the subjugation of our own will, the objectification of our bodies, lives, thought processes, i.e., humanity, to someone else, because it's the only way we will live without conflict, and can be anything other than evil. Objectification begins as a concept in the OT, and is a common theme, throughout.

"Being filled with the Holy Spirit," could be viewed as nothing more or less than possession, by some, for instance. However the "script" of the Bible was first intended, at its inception, I see it has become and is being used for nefarious purposes, now, and that is my intent, here. As I wrote somewhere else on the board today, I had a discussion recently with a hypnotist about tacit consent. It seems to me that believing in this sacrifice is a kind of tacit consent to be burdened with the sins of others, and sacrificed, yourself….and this way being glorified as a way of life, where it's a way of death, really, propagating cyclical bad behavior where those guilty of it go free, and the innocent are blamed. If that was what was intended, so that in the end there would be an equal and opposite reaction, and the Gospel of St. John (Revelations) would then take place, and free us all, giving us a new world and existence….it never seems to happen as technology both saddles us to carry the burden and justifies and makes possible just doing it all over again.

Anyway, thanks for the discourse. Take care and be well.
Tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

I think seeing it as a whole,instead of separate parts, may be the only way to try to parse the message, for it's often extremely contradictory… Without knowing what led to what, it's difficult to know what to do, intellectually, with such contradictions. The discussion you are having with manna2, for instance, about works and acts. Yet, in the NT, it is said we will be saved by faith alone.

You should know both parts to see how they are dissimilar.
This is what your phrase, "saved by faith alone" is saying.
The actual NT quote doesn't say it like that exactly.
It is making a comparison between two systems: "works" and "Grace".
Being "saved" in the Biblical context is not what modern pop-culture religion uses the word to mean.
You had Moses and the Israelites going to safety by crossing the Red Sea, once they set foot on the Sinai, they were saved.
Israel at that point was the congregation of the saved.
Now, to join that congregation, to be saved, you had to subscribe to and follow a set of rules, "Works".
We as Christians join the Congregation of the Saved, the church, through crossing over from death into life, symbolically through baptism as a profession of faith.
By Grace, we do not have to subscribe to and follow a set of Works.
We are saved to works, meaning a life that is lived out in a righteous manner.

The question then becomes, what purpose would that serve, beyond just control and manipulation.

To argue the legitimacy of the very existence of the entity that it supports.
The OT is an argument for why, despite being completely destroyed by the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, that they should be supported by the Persian authority to have their own semi autonomous province with their own capital and temple, with its reconstruction subsidized by the new empire.
The NT is an argument that Christianity is just as good, and probably better, than what Israel and Judea was claiming for itself, this time in a Roman environment.
My conspiracy theory (not really, since history supports this explanation) is that this book that shaped how you think about the Bible was made to create a new thing, a unification between the OT and the NT, to support the idea of Christians subsidizing Jews to start their own country in Palestine.

By the way, I think many miss the irony of Jesus being subjected to sacrifice as the "fulfillment" of the law that the wages of sin are death, being burdened with the sins of others and a fitting sacrifice because of that very innocence, and further, he was giving a message that this particular law, and all these other "commandments," would probably be unnecessary if people simply loved, forgave one another, turned the other cheek, and treated one another as they would be treated. There are many huge ironies, there.

It would be ironic, if that was how Jesus' sacrifice should be understood.
I don't think that Jesus died to pay for wages, and it is evidence for the power of brain washing that people can't see how that interpretation makes no sense.

It seems to me that believing in this sacrifice is a kind of tacit consent to be burdened with the sins of others, and sacrificed, yourself….and this way being glorified as a way of life, where it's a way of death, really, propagating cyclical bad behavior where those guilty of it go free, and the innocent are blamed. If that was what was intended, so that in the end there would be an equal and opposite reaction, and the Gospel of St. John (Revelations) would then take place, and free us all, giving us a new world and existence….

It was not written to mean that.
What you are describing is what it was interpreted into and fed to the illiterate masses as, in the Dark Ages.

a reply to: jmdewey60
Thanks, jmdewey60, for that explanation.

I want to add to what I've written above that though I may believe the text is currently being used in the manner I describe, and though I may believe quite a bit of it is/was scripted, and changed when politically convenient, dependent upon the times and what agenda it was to support, it does not mean I believe to be entirely "faked," as I described the difference in my post above your last. And therefore, I don't think it should be disregarded. I am only questioning the perspective it provides, how it's used, how it was meant, and how it can so easily support an agenda which isn't for anyone's good at all.

Anything at all, in fact, in a scripted, simulation possible environment, can be made into either evil, good, or something inbetween. It may seem a matter of choice, if what I describe is accurate. But if manipulated, scripted and only parts of an "expurgated" story are available, or made to look a whole other way, then choice is not a real thing.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I don't think that Jesus died to pay for wages,

I was clearly referring back to the discussion you and Manna2, I believe, were having as to his sacrifice having been to fulfill "the law," which is the wages of sin are death (the law).

and it is evidence for the power of brain washing that people can't see how that interpretation makes no sense.

It seems to me that believing in this sacrifice is a kind of tacit consent to be burdened with the sins of others, and sacrificed, yourself….and this way being glorified as a way of life, where it's a way of death, really, propagating cyclical bad behavior where those guilty of it go free, and the innocent are blamed. If that was what was intended, so that in the end there would be an equal and opposite reaction, and the Gospel of St. John (Revelations) would then take place, and free us all, giving us a new world and existence….
It was not written to mean that.
What you are describing is what it was interpreted into and fed to the illiterate masses as, in the Dark Ages.

As for this, going by the responses on the thread, I don't think I'm quite that out of touch with what people think about this.

Interesting you bring up the Dark Ages. Though a little off topic, perhaps relating to more historical psy-ops:

The Phantom Time Hypothesis

When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the "phantom time hypothesis," he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2005, but rather 1708; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots.
The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators. This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon?

It seems that historians are plagued by a plethora of falsified documents from the Middle Ages, and such was the subject of an archaeological conference in München, Germany in 1986. In his lecture there, Horst Fuhrmann, president of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, described how some documents forged by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages were created hundreds of years before their "great moments" arrived, after which they were embraced by medieval society. This implied that whomever produced the forgeries must have very skillfully anticipated the future... or there was some discrepancy in calculating dates.

If so much has been scripted, including Biblical times and events, going backwards to create a "new thing" and justify its creation, as you've stated, then it seems important to realize, expanding upon this metaphor, that history may have become a staged, scripted thing, with characters acting out "realities" dressed in costumes. Once that piece of fiction is over, though, it can get kind of hard to tell who was wearing what costume. As someone pointed out earlier we are souls, here, inhabiting bodies.. .

Again, I allude to the Bible laying a framework for objectification, regarding humanity as shells, for souls. In creating what you call a "new thing," anyone who disagrees can easily be dressed in the wrong clothes, so to speak, just to shut them up.

This creation of a new thing, implying a unification between Judaism and Christianity, to "begin their journey in Palestine:" I agree, and even see much of what is described in the OT this way, but it's a cycle where the journey remains the same because nothing new is really happening. Or being created…just the same chain of events. And even some of those events and actions aren't true.

This is where what is faked, as I mentioned before, and scripted creates a known confusion, which is being exploited, while nothing new really has yet to come of it.
Tetra