Man's Rule Will End (Soon)! But will it be good for all? Not gonna happen, just a pipe dream say yo

If Jesus really was simply the son of a Carpenter I have my doubts that he could even read.

It depends on what you make of tekton. The King James crew rendered it carpenter, Matt 13: 55; Mark 6: 3 which was, I think, a kind of construction worker, just as charpentier still is in French. Contemporary English has just about lost the word for the "other kind of carpenter," the maker of furniture, who was called a joiner, or less imaginatively, a cabinet maker.

The difference is that the turn-of the-era was a really good time to be a construction worker in Galilee. Joseph might easily have had plenty of disposable shekels to get Jesus educated. Also, it is not obvious that some time on the job site with Dad (or foster Dad, for all I know) wouldn't be an excellent preparation for a second career as an itinerant preacher. Perhaps the end of the building boom made that an even better idea.

Rabbi is teacher. Good grief, even an agnostic like me is happy to give him that much. Jesus doesn't just quote the Hebrew Bible, he argues expertly from it, against pricey opposition. So, his fisherman buddies cooked that up after the fact?

Where the hell is Occam's Razor when it just might work for once? The gentleman knew his scripture. What's wrong with the obvious explanation for this "phenomenon," that Jesus studied scripture?

reply to post by eight bits

Rabbi is teacher. Good grief, even an agnostic like me is happy to give him that much. Jesus doesn't just quote the Hebrew Bible, he argues expertly from it, against pricey opposition. So, his fisherman buddies cooked that up after the fact?

Eight Bits, I would like to add the following facts to your clear statement above if you don’t mind:

John 1:38 (quoted from a few bible versions)

“Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, "What do you seek?" They said to Him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), "where are You staying?" (NKJV)

“Jesus looked around and saw them following. "What do you want?" he asked them. They replied, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"” (NLT)

“Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” (NIV)

“Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" (ESV)

“And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" They said to Him, "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?" (NASB)

“Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" (RSV)

“And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abideth thou?” (ASV)

“And Jesus having turned, and having beheld them following, saith to them, `What seek ye?' and they said to them, `Rabbi, (which is, being interpreted, Teacher,) where remainest thou?'

Rabbi = Teacher

As for:

If Jesus really was simply the son of a Carpenter I have my doubts that he could even read

(Based on NKJV)

“And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.” – Luke 2: 42

“Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.” – Luke 2: 46, 47

I’m sure at age 12 Jesus was able to read in order to converse with very knowledgeable men.

Later on- in his adult life:

“Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. “And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." Luke 4: 14-20

“Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.” – Luke 4:20

Let’s see how these verses can be twisted to mean something else. That is, Jesus is uneducated and can’t read as claimed.

Ty,
edmc2

p.s

-- need to go back to the Topic to abide by the mod’s rule.

So, what say you? Do you agree with the OP that Man’s Rule Will End?

Of course, those who are atheist will say NO since they don’t believe in the Bible or the existence of God. But what’s the alternative since even secularist/scientist agree of a gloomy outlook of the future.

Notice the following quotes:

“Many of us have been saying for years that nuclear war would kill many millions of innocent people and would make large portions of the world uninhabitable . . . A group of respected scientists has reached an even more dismal conclusion—that a nuclear war, or even one general nuclear exchange by the superpowers, could touch off a worldwide climatic disaster that in turn could kill billions rather than millions and possibly could end human life on earth. The two-year study was made for the Conference on the Long-term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War. Its conclusions were endorsed by more than 100 scientists . . . Carl Sagan . . . put the consequences of nuclear war in stark terms: ‘The extinction of the human species would be a real possibility.’”—The Express (Easton, Pa.), November 3, 1983.

This conference was in 1983 – what about now in the 21st century? Are we closer to solving man’s problems thru Man’s Rule?

What say you?


Ciao,

Re edmc^2

Putting your original question into a (typically bible-thumber enforced) context of referring to your 'holy manual' as the bringer of 'ultimate truth', has as much meaning as citing from a telephone-directory.

As said before: Your motive can't be communication; you're here to preach.

Do that in a church.

reply to post by bogomil


Communication comes in different forms - this is just one avenue and everyone is entitled to say their piece either to encourage, give hope or prevent others from exercising their right of speech or thoughts and to discourage others from exchanging ideas. The latter though is a form of cowardice just like extremist who does not want to hear other opinions as it threatens their thier own belief. So I hope bogomil you are not one of those who will prevent others from expressing their thoughts in whatever format.

I'm glad though that you are not one of the mods on this site or forum - or else you prolly would have banned me and others like me.

What are you afraid of anyway? Is there truth to what I said? That Man's Rule Will End?

Does it threaten you? If not, then why are you trying to prevent me from participating on this site?

If what I said doesn't have any merit - why does it bother you?

On my part, I'm here to encourage to look at our reality from a different perspective. It's up to you to believe it or not but not to prevent a free expression of thoughts. Or else one will become like the pharisee of the Bible times - preventing others from expressing another idea.

So what say you?

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by bogomil
As said before: Your motive can't be communication; you're here to preach.

Do that in a church.

Or how about he does it in a forum called "Religion, Faith and Theology"? No, wait a second. I guess he did. Maybe you have a different idea of subjects appropriate to such a forum.

If you don't like the content of a thread, how's about you just move along, instead of whining?

Re edcm^2 and adjensen

First let me state clearly: As a confirmed liberal, I'm not only a supporter of free speech, I'm one of the knights in shining armor protecting it (amongst others against certain types of fundie fanatics, who would like to have monopoly on everything).

So ofcourse I don't suggest general censorship on any forum, even in the case where a forum, IMO, is misused as a pulpit. It's my belief that a forum of the ATS type is for communication (how difficult and heated that may turn out to be). Not for endless monologues, which is mostly white noise. But I certainly don't want to 'censor' such away.

What I'm doing is exactly to use MY right to free speech, by saying 'bugger off'. Not because I'm in opposition to the ideology of a post, but according my definition of a forum as above.

I have expressed a personal opinion, I have not called for outside help. And should any, e.g. a moderator, 'forcibly' remove posts like the ones from edcm^2, I would protest.

My atttitude is: 'Bugger off', and the answer from adjensen is a reciprocial: "Bogomil, YOU bugger off". It's suggested, that if I don't like it, I don't read it.

I suggest instead, that edcm^2 doesn't write it. There's no informational value in endless bible-verses, 'explained' by pseudo-logic. The only purpose such threads have is to create smokescreens to hide the obvious shortcomings of fanatical 'christianity'.

This demagogue reaction to my post doesn't surprise to me. I've had many confrontations with fundies on ATS, and sooner or later the 'victim' syndrome manifests. "Why are you picking at us?". "You're infringing on our rights" etc.

For two thousand years now, parts of pauline fundamentalist 'christianity' has been 'picking' on mankind and infringing on mankind's rights. When I send the ball back, it's almost as if I had molested an innocent child (a most familiar concept).

The situation is as follows: Some 'christians' infringe on peoples' rights. Then I infringe on such 'christians' rights to infringe on peoples' rights. And now we're at the point, where 'christians' are infringing on my rights to infringe on 'christian' rights to infringe on peoples' rights.

Diversionary tactics as usual. When will the famous angels dancing on a pin appear?

Originally posted by bogomil
I suggest instead, that edcm^2 doesn't write it. There's no informational value in endless bible-verses, 'explained' by pseudo-logic. The only purpose such threads have is to create smokescreens to hide the obvious shortcomings of fanatical 'christianity'.

This demagogue reaction to my post doesn't surprise to me. I've had many confrontations with fundies on ATS, and sooner or later the 'victim' syndrome manifests. "Why are you picking at us?". "You're infringing on our rights" etc.

For two thousand years now, parts of pauline fundamentalist 'christianity' has been 'picking' on mankind and infringing on mankind's rights. When I send the ball back, it's almost as if I had molested an innocent child (a most familiar concept).

The problem is that you "send the ball back" with misinformation and inaccuracies. You and I first ran across each other when you were claiming that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had selected the books of the Christian Bible. Are you still operating under that fantasy, clearly and easily disproved by historical documentary evidence? You walked away from that discussion with a "I'll get back to you" and never did, because, I presume, you set your Dan Brown books aside, actually looked at the facts and realized you were wrong.

Do you still claim allegiance to Gnostic Christianity, despite the glaringly obvious contradictory nature of Hellenistic and Judaic thought, and truly believe that Christ, so clearly a Jew, would not begin by abjectly renouncing the entire Jewish religion, since Gnosticism is directly counter to it?

You repeatedly denounce Paul, without any basis, regardless of the numerous times I've asked you to demonstrate where his teachings are significantly out of line with Christ's.

Don't get me wrong -- I have no problem with your beliefs, regardless of whether I believe them right or wrong. I don't really even have a problem with you speaking your mistruths. But don't think for one second that I'm not going to correct your misstatements, call you out on your misrepresentations of Christianity, and speak my mind when it is appropriate.

Your claim that edcm^2 and I should just shut up is the claim that, in your mind, those who speak counter to your beliefs deserve less respect than you do. In a forum called "Religion, Faith and Theology", a thread such as this is exceedingly appropriate, and stating that one should not "argue from scripture" in such a forum demonstrates ignorance and intolerance. You don't like it, because there is little in scripture that supports your distorted view of Christianity, but that does nothing to the text's credibility and appropriateness for inclusion in a discussion such as this.

As I said, if you do not like it, you do not need to participate. That is common sense, not censorship, as you propose. Declaring that your views deserve airing, and edcm^2's do not, is flat out intolerance and attempted censorship, despite your claims to the contrary.

(As an aside, you apparently have no understanding of the term "Fundamentalist", as it is applied to the Christian faith. An apologist, even an orthodox one, is not necessarily a Fundamentalist, and any Christian who wouldn't stand up for the truth about their own beliefs is a pretty weak Christian. Although I was brought up in a Fundamentalist leaning church, I discarded that belief many years ago. Calling me and my defence of the faith a "fundie" might amuse you, but it is inaccurate and demeaning.)

reply to post by bogomil


I am glad you are in favor of free speech, but telling somebody to basically "shut up" in forum on a site that encourages a discussion because you don't want to hear it...... is what?

ATS members should never try to shut down or stifle any types of discussions, rather we can choose to just ignore them instead, that is what really shows respect for free speech. As Ron Paul once said in a free society we have to put up with the opinions that we disagree with, even the silly ones.

I support the OP right to state his opinion on bible verses, especially in a sub-forum that is dedicated to such topics.

reply to post by bogomil


Although we are going off topic again, I can't help but reply to this statement because it says a lot where you stand bogomil:

you said:

First let me state clearly: As a confirmed liberal, I'm not only a supporter of free speech, I'm one of the knights in shining armor protecting it (amongst others against certain types of fundie fanatics, who would like to have monopoly on everything).

" I'm one of the knights in shining armor protecting it " -- on the contrary, your responses contradict your stand.
If you mean protecting it as allowing others to say their piece how ever contradictory to your belief then that I agree. But as its turning out, you're preventing others from expressing their thoughts. Sad part is your attaching a label to them also such as "fundie fanatics". Not a good sign of being a "knights in shining armor".

Which remind me of a something I read about discrediting - call them names and label them to reduce them to nothing. Was that your intention also bogomil?

Like what i said, I'm glad that you're not a mod here because this site will not fucntion as it is intended to be to "deny ignorance", that is imho, deny the ignorance of extremist.

ty,
edmc.

So again, why does this thread bother you and wants it out of this site / forum?

Re adjensen

You don't have to scratch very deep into the sugarcoated surface of the totalitarian pauline fantasy, before the basic brutality shines through.

When you have finished dodging and feel able to adress me straight, I'll be around.

Re edmc^2

I take it, that you're not confusing the issues on purpose.

Maybe you have lived so long in your holy bubble, that you've lost contact with contemporary communication-forms or manifestations of co-census, but there is a difference between making a dialogue and dishing out endless propaganda (pretending it is 'information').

It's very easy to sabotage or monopolize a forum by posting any amount of white noise on it. Eventually readers will loose interest, if they are exposed to massive doses of nonsense. And historically it's been one of pauline 'christianity's' favourite methods to infiltrate, assimilate, pervert and end up by calling the confused remnants of the original system for 'heretics'.

The method is highly invasive, and even if you and other fundies didn't succeed in taking over, you would at least have silenced a forum, which has a lot of active criticism of fundie 'christianity'.

So stop complaining, because I've called your cards. Fundie-time of self-appointed privileges is over.

(If you at one time wish to try a sample of your own methods, I can produce something similar to your sermons, pretending I'm selling a competitor to your bid for power).

Originally posted by bogomil
You don't have to scratch very deep into the sugarcoated surface of the totalitarian pauline fantasy, before the basic brutality shines through.

When you have finished dodging and feel able to adress me straight, I'll be around.

Dodging what? Your first sentence says absolutely nothing. How are Paul's teachings out of line with Jesus' teachings? How do you reconcile Jesus' absolute Jewishness with claims that he really came from a Gnostic, Hellenistic divinity?

Two very simple questions, and I want to know what YOU think and what your basis is, not some vague "go look it up yourself and the truth will be revealed to you." That's weak, and implies that you know full well that the sources that might support your position are as screwball as the position they purport to support.

reply to post by bogomil


On the contrary, I have no intention to monopolized or take over a discussion. But as I understand the ATS rules of communication, you present your point of view and provide proof to your arguments. Of course some will view the argument as a sermon - case in point - you because of preconceived ideas of what constitute a communication. That is, just because one uses the scriptures as the authority to prove a point it’s automatically considered a sermon - a poor very way of imho evaluating the validity of a thread or posts.

Anyway I take it that you didn’t read the rest of the OP, because if you did you prolly will have a different point of view other than what you said - a “sermon” of a “fundie fanatics”

or:

“The method is highly invasive, and even if you and other fundies didn't succeed in taking over, you would at least have silenced a forum, which has a lot of active criticism of fundie 'christianity'.”

But then again I might be wrong.

Here’s part of the OP:

“Sadly though, many religious leaders who claim to be servants of God are themselves responsible for spreading the lies (knowingly or otherwise). They alienated (and continue to alienate) many because of their immoral conducts, lifestyles and unbiblical teachings such as the ‘immortal soul’ doctrine, that God will take away good people to heaven while he will roast the sinners in a fiery place of torment called “hellfire”/ purgatory. They make traditions of men as God's commands – thereby burdening their members with costly expenses – year after year. They even removed God's holy name in most Bibles – thereby confusing the many of the true identity of the living God.

They fused pagan teachings with Christian teachings (idol worship / saint worship, Halloween, voodoo, etc), presided over inquisitions and launched crusades. They not only allow but lead the worship of the creation rather than the Creator. Elevated men to positions that rival Jesus – having the authority to forgive sins at the same time bless young men in the name of God and send them to kill their fellowman and their brothers. They equate country with God – to serve your country is to serve God (patriotic nationalism), they watered down Jesus' Golden Rule and commands – declare immoral practices as a normal way of life. The even removed the word ‘SIN’ in their sermons so as not offend anyone.

Busily meddling in politics (becoming candidates themselves), claiming to be Christians yet fighting with their brothers in the political arena (liberal vs conservative Christians) – pitting God’s laws against man’s laws (sometimes by force), influencing politicians to adopt their teachings (#Creationism/ID) while in some corners declare that evolution is part of God's plan. Some hide in the cloak of holiness while practicing wickedness, victimizing the most innocent, on other corners they command their followers to strap bombs, blow themselves up and kill people. Others say that the varieties in religion are just different ways to approach God – different roads leading to the same destination –disunited but all acceptable to God - a lie worthy of satan’s approval.

The list goes on and on and on. No wonder the word ‘religion’ has such a bad taste and connotation!

#Creationism – as defined and incorporated in the Arkansas Law and judicial Opinion.
#ID (Intelligent Design) – a carefully worded science curriculum where the living God as the designer is not even mentioned. Meaning there’s intelligence in design but not by a designer.”

As you can see – the statements in the OP are honest look at reality. Not a sugarcoated as you put it “sermon”.

How am I able to do this?

I have freeness of speech to utter such things because I’m free of such unholy and worldly acts by virtue of him that set me free – Jesus Christ. He has set me free from the condemnation that is about to take place on earth, that is the End of Man’s Rule (of course as long as I remain true to his words then I remain his friend).

So if criticism is what you want or intended to do – fire away. Because if ones belief or faith can't stand scrutiny especially an honest one then it will fall and crumble. One thing I do ask though - stay on topic if possible.

Ty,
edmc2