MarkT

Isaiah 9: 5-6

{ 11:17 AM, 6/10/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Isaiah 9

5. For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
"The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -
6. In token of abundament authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David's throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore.
The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
Shall bring this to pass.

From the "Tanakh" (JPS:1985)

This is like naming a child Jesus / Yeshua / Joshua. It is a COMMON name with a meaning that does not indicate that the child WITH that name is God. Every person named Jesus / Yeshua / Joshua is NOT God. In the same manner, every child named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" is NOT God. In the same manner, Peter means "rock" but a child called "Peter" is not a literal rock.

ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS - the ALTERNATIVE story!

{ 11:11 AM, 6/10/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Now that very same day, two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking together about all that had happened. And it happened that as they were talking together and discussing it, Jesus himself came up and walked by their side; but their eyes were prevented from recognising him.

He said to them, 'What are all these things that you are discussing as you walk along?' They stopped, their faces downcast.

Then one of them, called Cleopas, answered him, 'You must be the only person staying in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have been happening there these last few days.'

He asked, 'What things?'

They answered, 'All about our god Jesus. Our god was crucified and died. We've had no-one running the universe or holding things together since he died. We kept praying to him but got no answer because the line to heaven was dead. We couldn't talk to God because we have have to go through our
dead god Jesus to do so. Our god died and we didn't give him a a decent funeral service in a church. Now we're going to either call Jesus NONImmanuel which means god ISN'T with us ... OR ... wonderful corpse, putrefying god. Hey, on the positive side, we've got a catchy little Jesus Jingle we're gonna use in church next week. It's sung to Our God Reigns:
Our god died
Our god died
Our god died
Our god died
Do you think it'll make the Top 40 Jesus Jingle Hit Parade?"

Jesus and the INCLUSION of the OUTCAST

{ 11:09 AM, 6/10/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

We should not be surprised to learn that the Jesus no-one really knows is a subverter of causes. That he tramples with disdain on our saccharine sentiments. That he contradicts the labels we pin on him. p. 18

Jesus ... encourages me to celebrate life, to suck the marrow out of existence, to explore and probe, and experiment, to venture into uncharted seas, without fear of a tyrannical and vindictive God. p.19

The gospel of Jesus came to expression in the parables and aphorisms preserved in Q, Thomas, and other gospels. The message of the parables and aphorisms is first and foremost the announcement of good news: sinners and outcasts are welcome in God's kingdom; indeed, God's domain belongs to them. ... God's domain was for Jesus something already present. It was also something to be celebrated because it embraces everyone - Jew, gentile, slave, free, male, female. ... The kingdom represents an unbrokered relationship to God: temple and priests are obsolete. p. 41

According to the gospels, Jesus was a social deviant, a charismatic teacher who attracted a consderable fo0llowing. He was apparently a nonconformist, like many of the oprophets of ancient Israel. he seems to have criticized the temple cult and subverted some purity codes. He was a trouble maker. p. 59

Jesus was a comic savant. He mixed hum,our with subversive and troubling knowledge born of direct insight. ... A comic savant is an intellectual - better, a poet - who is redefining what it means to be wise. That is the real role of a court jester: tell the king truth but tell it as a joke. ... New truth is easier to embrace if it comes wrapped in humour. p. 158

In the beginning was the parable. The parable, for Jesus, was a window on the world. .... Jesus names this new logic God's imperial rule, or, in traditional language, the kingdom of God. In that realm, in God's domain, people and things do not behave in expected ways. ... according to Jesus, the habituated world obscured the real world, where his Father, God, had absolute dominion. p. 165

1. In God's domain help comes only to those who have no right to expect it and who cannot resist it when it is offered.

2. Help always comes from the quarter from which one does not and cannot expect it. We might reduce these two statements to one: In God's domain help is perpetually a surprise. p. 180

Jesus was perceived as and probably was what we would call an urban partygoer. Jesus seems to have been given to conviviality; he apparently enjoyed an open table. He would probably have not had the means to sponsor an evening of scintillating conversation over food and drink - a symposium as it was called. Yet he did not hesitate to attend convivial gatherings sponsored by others. pp. 192-193

Those with whom Jesus ate and drank originally ... were all real sinners or outsiders - that is how they were perceived from the standpoint of those who adhered to purity codes and ate kosher. Sinners, outsiders in Jesus' society, included persons with a skin disease ("lepers"), the maimed, the halt, the bliond, gentiles, Samaritans, as well as petty tax officials, who were Roman collaborators, and women who did not observe the social proprieties. ... This paradox of Jesus - outsiders are in, insiders are out ... p. 194

There is no stronger statement of Jesus' predilection for the outsider than the parable of the good Samaritan. There is no more poignant statement of the disdain for the priests, levites, and the temple than this story. ... God has a preference for the lowly, the poor, the undeserving, the sinner, the social misfits, the marginalized, the humble. p. 196

"Whoever is not against us is on our side." (Mark) .. Jesus .. was apparently inclusive rather than exclusive. p. 199

There appeared to be no sacred places in Jesus' world: all space had become sacred. p. 203

Jesus insisted that people can only enter the kingdom if they don't deserve to. The poor, the bereaved, the hungry are welcojme there, buitb the self-righteous ahnd hypocritical are not. Those who think they belong don't; those who are afraid they don't do. The last will be first and the first last. p. 215

One may enter without permission; all that is required is boldness, confidence, the trust thatb it is acceptable to proceed. Those who need to be authorized to pass, who feel they must have permission, are not worthy of entrance. Strictly speaking, of course, arrival in the kingdom is not even possible. Arrival is by departure only. Entrance into God's domain is the same thing as exodus. It is the quest of Abraham for a new ancestral home. It is Moses leading tjhe children of Israel out of Egypt in search of the promised land. It is forsaking mother and father, wife and children, in order to acquire true relatives. For it no map is available. It is truly an immense journey. p. 216

from Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus" (Hodder & Stoughton:1996)

The Shema

{ 11:06 AM, 6/10/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

THE SHEMA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FUNDAMENTALIST VERSION

And one of the scholars aproached when he heard them arguing, and because he saw how spiritually Jesus answered them, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?'

Jesus answered: "The first is 'Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is ME, and you are to love ME with all your heart and all your soul [and all your mind] and with all your energy.'

And the scholar said to him, "That's a fine answer, Lord my God. You have correctly said that YOU are the Lord my God and there is no other beside YOU. And 'to love YOU with all one's heart and with all one's mind and with all one's energy' and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself' is greater than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices put together."

And when Jesus saw that he answered him with the correct doctrine, he said to him, "You are not far from being a Trew Kristyun"

Mark 12:28-34 Fundy Version

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE REAL VERSION

And one of the scholars aproached when he heard them arguing, and because he saw how skillfully Jesus answered them, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?'

Jesus answered: "The first is 'Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, and you are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul [and all your mind] and with all your energy.'

And the scholar said to him, "That's a fine answer, Teacher. You have correctly said that God is one and there is no other beside him. And 'to love him with all one's heart and with all one's mind and with all one's energy' and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself' is greater than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices put together."

And when Jesus saw that he answerwed him sensibly, he said to him, "You are not far from God's domain."

Mark 12:28-34 Scholars Version

JOHN 1:1-18

{ 9:46 AM, 20/9/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

JOHN 1:1-18

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom.

The divine word and wisdom was there with God,
and it was what God was.
It was there with God fgrom the beginning.
Everything came to be by means of it;
nothing exists came to be without its agency.
In it was life,
and this life was the light of humanity.
Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.

There appeared a man sent from God named John. he came to testify - to
testify to the light - so everyone would believe through him. He was not
the light; he came only to attest to the light.

Genuine light - the kind that provides light for everyone
- was coming into the world.
Although it was in the world,
and the world came about through its agency,
the world did not recognize it.
It came to its own place,
but its own people were not receptive to it.
But to all who did embrace it,
to those who believed in it,
it gave the right to become children of God.
They were not born from a sexual union,
not from physical desire,
and not from male willfulness:
they were born of God.

The divine word and wisdom became human
and made itself at home among us.
We have seen its majesty,
majesty appropriate
to a father's only son,
brimming with generosity and truth.

John testifies on his behalf and has called out, "This is the one I was
talking about when I said, 'He who is to come after me is actually my
superior, because he was there before me.'"

From his richness
all of us benefited -
one gift after another.
Law was given through Moses;
mercy and truth came through Jesus the Anointed.
No-one has ever seen God;
the only son, an intimate of the Father - he has disclosed (him).

From Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels" (Macmillan: 1993) pp. 401 - 402

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note "it" not "He".

The text doesn't indicate that Jesus is God but that Jesus had the "divine word and wisdom" OF God within him.

This is in line with Islam, Judaism and the early Jewish Christians pre 70CE.

PSALM 110:1

{ 9:45 AM, 20/9/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

PSALM 110:1

The LORD said to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand
while I make your enemies your footstool."

(JPS Tanakh: 1985)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This Psalm is about God speaking to David, king / lord of Israel.

It doesn't mention Jesus of Nazareth anywhere in the text.

Text & Archeology from the Ist Century ON JESUS OF NAZARETH

{ 1:33 PM, 30/8/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Why did Jesus happen when and where he happened? Why then? Why there? Sharpen the question a little. Why did two popular movements, the baptism movement of John and the Kingdom movement of Jesus, happen in territories ruled by Herod Antipas in the 20s of that first common-era century? Why not another time? Why not another place? Imagine two ways of answering those questions: by stone or text, by ground or gospel, by material remains or scribal remains, by the work of the archaeologist or the work of the exegete. Imagine, next, every one of those four ... ors replaced by equally emphasised ands. It is not a case of archaeology or exegesis, but of archaeology and exegesis. p. xvii

The Top Ten Discoveries for Excavating Jesus

This book is about digging for Jesus, digging down archeologically amidst the stones to reconstruct his world and digging down exegetically amidst the texts to reconstruct his life. It is, above all else, about integrating those twin excavations in order to locate his life in its world, to place his vision and his program in its time and place. Both types of digs involved inspection and identification, reconstruction and interpretation. Especially interpretation. We know that the stones cannot speak to us without our interpretation. But neither can the texts. p. 1

ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES

1. The James Ossuary ... November 2002 *[ Now proven to be a hoax]
...
2. The Caiaphas Ossuary
...
3. The Pilate Inscription
...
4. The Crucified man
...
5. The Lake of Tiberius
...
6. Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem
...
7. Sepphoris and Tiberias
...
8. Masada and Qumran
...
9. Jodefat and Gamla
...
10. Stone Vessels and Ritual Pools pp. 1-6

EXEGETICAL DISCOVERIES

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls
2. The Nag Hammadi Codices
3. The dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark
4. The dependence of Matthew and Luke on the Q gospel
5. The dependence of John on Mark, Matthew and Luke.
6. The independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the canonical gospels.
7. The common saying tradition in the Q gospel and the Gospel of Thomas
8. The independence of The Teaching (Didache) from the gospels
9. The existence of an independent source in the Gospel of Peter
10. The clash between James and Paul as reflected back on the historical
Jesus. p. 7

The Layers Of Gospel. ... Gospel layering has several components. Form criticism establishes the earliest formats used in transmitting the tradition ( a parable, an aphorism, a dialogue, a law, etc.). Source criticism establishes who is copying from whom. Redaction criticism builds on such copying to establish the purpose for the copyist's omission, addition, or alteration. Tradition criticism uses all of the above to establish successive layers of the tradition's development. .... On the one hand, the farther removed the layers are from the time of Jesus, the more
Christian they become. Unlike earlier gospel layers, later ones tend to distance from Judaism and "the Jews" (so John) or use Jewish texts and interpretative devices to reinvent Judaism as Christianity (so Matthew). And later archaeological layers commemorating Jesus' life tend to efface signs of his Jewishness in the earlier ones and replace them with features
from Rome or Byzantium. On the other hand, the farther removed Jesus is from his first-century Galilean context, the more elite and regal he becomes. Unlike earlier gospel layers, later ones portray him as a leisurely phil;osopher (so John) or a literate interpreter of scrolls and erudite partner at banquets (so Luke). And later shrines and churches in Galilee and Jerusalem efface his humble peasant beginnings in archaeological layers and replace them with imperial and monumental architecture. In Excavating Jesus, we want to return to that earliest layer of both earth and text. pp. 12-15

... the continuity from Jewish Torah to Jewish Jesus is most clearly seen ... in the first century, "the Kingdom" meant simply the Roman Empire. Theirs was the kingdom, the power, and the glory. When, therefore, Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he chose the one expression most calculated to draw Roman attention to what he was doing. Not the "people" or the "community" of God but the "Kingdom" of God. That very phrase was an immediate confrontation with the Kingdom of Rome, which had arrive forcibly with Herod The Great in Judea and Caesarea Maritima in the generation before Jesus and then arrived with Herod Antipas in Lower Galilee at Sepphoris by 4 BCE and at Tiberias by 19-20 CE in the generation of Jesus. .... Pilate got it exactly right, from the point of view of his imperial responsibilities: Jesus and his Kingdom were a threat to Roman law and order, and his Jewish God was a threat to the roman God. ... To accept divine ownership in all its radical implications meant a new creation. ... The Kingdom of God, in other
words, was not just a vision but a program, not just an idea but a lifestyle, not just about heaven hereafter but about earth here and now, and not just about one person but about many others as well. pp. 318-319

In that first century it was absolutely impossible to separate religion and politics and economics. Coinage, the only mass medium of antiquity, said that Caesar was divi filius, Son of God, and supremus pontifex, the supreme bridge builder between heaven and earth, the high priest of the Roman state religion. p. 320

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

The Cities.

Within a few years of Jesus' execution most of the followers of Jesus whose names we know left the rural surroundings and village environs of Galilee to live in Jerusalem. ....

The Pagans.

... The nations, or the Gentiles, meant those great empires that one after another had conquered, oppressed, and persecuted them over half a millennium. .... What would God do with those evil empires? .... extermination or conversion ... most important, conversion was not to
Judaism but to God ....At Jerusalem, James, Peter, and the others clearly chose that second option since they accepted male pagan converts into the community without circumcision. ... pp. 321-322

The Wars

There was a time when it was easy to expl;ain why "Christianity" broke away from and / or was rejected by "Judaism". Christians believed Jesus was messiah, Lord, Son of God, and Jews did not. Those were the reasons. Or again: Christians refused Sabbath, circumcision, kosher, and Jews did not. Those were the reasons ... They now, however, seem totally anachronistic.
... Christian Jews took ... their place alongside Pharisaic Jews, Sadducean Jews, and Essene Jews, Fourth-Philosophy Jews, Sicarii Jews, and Zealot Jews, as well as many other types, options, visions, and programs. They were no more and no less than one group disputing against other groups, but within the same politico-religious community, that is, within Judaism and
not against Judaism. pp 322-323

The Parting of the Ways

... Why did all the other Jewish groups slowly but surely reject the Christian Jewish option? ... The Christian Jewish group maintained that pagans and Jews could now live together under God in Christ. They maintained that belief despite three terrible wars in which pagans looked
exactly like they always had and behaved exactly as they always did. The parting of the ways arose because, for most other Jews, that Christian Jewish claim was incredible. The inclusion of pagans and the devastation by pagans was irreconcilable. pp. 323-324

from John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L Reed "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" ( HarperSanFrancisco: 2001).

Jesus had a God to Whom he prayed

{ 10:22 AM, 29/8/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

JESUS HAD A GOD TO WHOM HE PRAYED ....

At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - Mark 15:34

DOES GOD HAVE A GOD???

Does your god fall asleep?

{ 10:05 AM, 29/8/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Jesus fell asleep: Luke 8:23

Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for
ever."

Your god may be sleeping NOW.

Colossians 1:17 says "in (or by) Him (Jesus) all things hold together."

If that is the case WHO is holding everything together when Jesus falls asleep????

The Gate

{ 4:24 PM, 5/2/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

"Sensi" wrote:

>> Jesus said he is the gate to salvation:
>> I am the gate;
>> whoever enters through me will be saved.
>> (John 10:9 NIV)
...
> Perhaps the kingdom of heaven *IS* within.
> Where you find the gate and you enter in and look *within* surely there
> is a land of prosperity. Would you see the people prospering?
> What would the prosperity consist of?

The gate is there to protect something of value.

The gate isn't the final object.

What is BEYOND the gate is the thing of value.

Jesus is stated as having said that he was the way.

The way TO WHAT?

What lies beyond the gate?

Salvation BY the gate or salvation by Someone else?

It would seem to me that Jesus is the gate TO GOD.

How to prove Jesus is God

{ 4:21 PM, 24/1/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

The infinite can NEVER be fully contained by the finite.

It is an impossibility by definition.

The finite is bounded and the infinite is unbounded.

THEREFORE

The infinite One God cannot be bound in the body of the finite Jesus of
Nazareth.

IF

the infinite One God is not bound in the body of the finite Jesus of
Nazareth

THEN

Jesus is not FULLY the infinite One God

(though he could contain PART of God within his finite body because the
infinite is in all finite things but never fully contained in any of them
nor bound to the sum of all finite things - which is still a finite number)

You have not understood this verse by the FIRST WRITER on the life of Jesus
of Nzareth - Paul ...

50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)

--
"God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"

God was in the finite Jesus of Nazareth because the infinite One God is
omnipresent.

God WAS NOT Christ because the infinite One God cannot be contained / bound
by the finite body of Jesus of Nzareth.

To PROVE that Jesus is God you MUST explain how an INFINITE being can be
FULLY contained in a FINITE vessel. i.e. NONE of that infinite being
OUTSIDE the finite being. That means that where Jesus of Nazareth is on
earth , there God is BUT ALSO that God exists NOWHERE apart from the finite
body of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore when Jesus of Nazareth is in Bethlehem
then God is not in Jerusalem (or any other place in the universe).

I look forwared to your philosophical proof of this matter for only then can
Jesus of Nazareth be FULLY the One God.

That is what EVERY TRINITARIAN CHRISTIAN cannot answer and cannot prove. On
this fact rests the whole of the "Jesus is God" theory.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

{ 4:06 PM, 24/1/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

>><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8 WEB)
> <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

SO THEREFORE .....

Jesus still has a finite physical body.
Jesus is still Jewish.
Jesus still eats, drinks, sleeps, farts, pisses and shits.
Jesus still worships Yahweh (as he did in the Jerusalem Temple)
Jesus still has wounds in his hands and feet and scars on his head.
Jesus is still floating up in the heavens.

Just like 2000 years ago!!!!

BUT

Jesus CHANGED from fetus to baby to child to teenager to adult.

MAYBE Jesus Christ ISN'T the same yesterday, today, and forever.

"SAME" means "UNCHANGED":

When? Continued

{ 4:10 PM, 13/1/2008 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

> WHEN?
>
> by Thomas Roper -- Orthodox Jew (Ex-Southern Baptist Minister)
...
> In other words: Is it or is it not, necessary for one to accept Jesus as
> G-d/Son of G-d, in order to please G-d? If so, when, at what point in time,
> did it become necessary?"
>

Eighth century - when the Moors were a threat to the holy Roman empire, that was
when the new doctrine "Only christians are saved" was introduced.

After all, - if your religion is under attack and the aggressors were taking the
lands, converting the people and was threatening the religious order and indeed
the entire christian nation -they had to define the issue which separated them
from the Muslims.

In one stroke, they created a doctrine of religious superiority, and a
psychological weapon against islam, and a propaganda weapon to encourage their
own armies .. and finally, gave the christian church the power, not merely to
cast someone out of the church, but out of heaven itself.

Oh and BTW - do you wonder how easily I can defeat this doctrine?

I remember well good old Morris getting so angry when I said I did not want to
go to father, but instead to the G_d who brought me out of the land of egypt
... and I pointed out only Jews could say "You brought ME out of the land of
Egypt." - that he discussed my genitalia.

Let alone comparing the way of JtB to the way of JC.
let alone comparing the punishment of christians verses non Christian in the
book of revelation
Let alone discussing the personality of the most high ... and how he changed
let alone the fruit of arrogance which this doctrine created.

Five separate tests, five separate failures.

It is a load of crap - not NT doctrines at all. It is eighth century theology
when the Christian church started the process where the church became lawyers
and the goal was to gather all power into the church by means of lawyer rulings
based in theological terms. (eighth to twelfth century)

--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

EMMANUEL which means "I am God"??????

{ 10:04 AM, 9/3/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 1:23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew regularly stuffs things up (Remember the "virgin" bit?). Matthew borrows from Mark and edits with Q and his own ideas. Matthew never met the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

My name is Mark which means (amongst other things) a hammer. Am I a hammer?
Is my name a proof that I am a hammer?

Matthew took the phrase OUT OF CONTEXT for the next few verses
of Isaiah state:

7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 7:17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah--the king of Assyria."

Did that happen in Jesus' lifetime?

Did God (aka Jesus) learn how to "refuse the evil and choose the good"?????

Mary to two-year-old Jesus: "Naughty, God. Don't throw a temper tantrum at Jerusalem K-Mart!"

Does God have to learn???????

Emmanuel means "God is with us" NOT "I am God".

If ALL people called Emmanuel are God (because of their name) then there are
thousands of Gods around the place. See
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=1&t=1&s=Emmanuel

If Jesus' name was "I am God" it would have been more impressive.

OR

Maybe Mary and Joseph should have named him God to save all the confusion. Grace Slick (of Jefferson Airpolane fame) named her son "god" - with a small g so he would remain humble.

BEGOTTEN - What does it mean?

{ 4:21 PM, 7/3/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

BEGOTTEN is denoted by two words in the Greek

1. prototokos : the firstborn of man or beast

Used in Mat 1:25, Luk 2:7, Hbr 11:28, Hbr 12:23

Used of JESUS .......................

Rom 8:29 his Son , that he might be the firstborn among many brethren .

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church : who is the beginning ,the firstborn from the dead ; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Hbr 1:6 And again , when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ , [who is] the faithful witness , [and] the first begotten of the dead

2. monogenes: single of its kind, only - used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

Used in Luk 7:12, Luk 8:42, Luk 9:38, Hbr 11:17

Used of JESUS

Jhn 1:14 the only begotten of the Father

Jhn 1:18 the only begotten Son , which is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared [him].

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten Son

Jhn 3:18 he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1Jo 4:9 God sent his only begotten Son into the world

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OF INTEREST ......................

Romans: Paul 50 - 60 CE
Colossians: May not be Paul 50 - 80 CE
Hebrews: Not Paul 50 - 95 CE
Revelation: Not apostle John 90 - 95 CE

BUT

John / 1 John: Not apostle John 90 -120 CE.

SO ............................

Could John's gospel have gotten it WRONG??????

Maybe Jesus is "the firstborn from the dead" / "the first begotten of the dead" and NOT "the only begotten of the Father" / "the only begotten Son".

This would tie in more reasonably with the following verses:

"You are gods; you are all Sons of the Most High." (Psalm 82:6)
"You are children of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1)
Adam is called the Son of God. (Luke 3:38)
Ephraim is a Son of God. (Jeremiah 31:9)
Jacob is called the first born Son of God. (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon is called the Son of God. (I Chronicles 22:10)
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)

IS JESUS STILL THE SAME?????

{ 11:26 AM, 7/3/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Worshipping CREATOR or CREATION?

{ 10:35 AM, 28/2/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Worshipping the CREATOR
- Yahweh
- Infinite One God
- Owner / Anointer of the Messiah
- Spirit

Worshipping the CREATION
- Jesus of Nazareth
- Finite human
- Owned / Anointed by Yahweh (Yahweh's Messiah)
- Made from the dust of the ground

NOTE: "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21).
NOT "God WAS Christ"

MATHEMATICAL PROOF - Why Jesus isn't God

{ 4:08 PM, 27/2/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

IF

you are stating that Jesus is God

THEN

you are stating that God is fully contained within Jesus

OTHERWISE

Jesus is not fully God but only contains PART of God.

We ALL contain part of God because God is infinite and God is in ALL of us. That does not mean that every individual is God!

No finite individual can be the infinite One God because the mass total of all individuals is still a finite number, the individula is one from that finite number and God is infinite

NOTE: "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21).
NOT "God WAS Christ"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PROOF 1.

IF

God is finite Jesus of Nazareth

THEN

God is not infinite for the sum total of all finite things is greater than God. God becomes another THING (idol) amongst many.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PROOF 2

infinity / 1 is infinity but 1 / infinity is close enough to 0

so

inifinite God / all the people that exit, have ever existed or will exist = infinite God God

i.e. God is greater than the sum of all individuals (including Jesus of Nazareth). All individulas are included in the infinite God but the infinite God cannot be fully contained in any one individual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I have before me a glass of merlot. It is not all the merlot in the
> world, but it is still merlot and very good merlot it is, too.
>
> This drink IS merlot.
>
> And Jesus is God.

I have before me a glass of merlot. It is not all the merlot in the world, but it is still merlot and very good merlot it is, too.

This drink IS merlot BUT the glass is NOT merlot! The glass is a container of a PART of all the merlot in the world. I cannot point to this single glass and claim that it is ALL the merlot in the world. There are millions of other glassess of merlot. The drink in these glasses is exactly the same as the original glass of merlot being discussed. None of these glasses are merlot either! Every glass has a bit of merlot in it but none of the glasses has ALL the merlot in the world in it.

To point to a single glass and say "This is all the merlot in the world" is ridiculous.

> Jesus is God.

Jesus like one glass of merlot amongst millions of glasses of merlot.

Mark 17:21 - 22 (MTV) "....that all of the glasses of merlot may be one, All Merlot In The World, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one "

Obviously we (as glasses of merlot) are EACH "all the merlot in the world" THEREFORE by your illogic WE ARE ALL GOD!!!!

>> Jesus is not fully God but only contains PART of God. We ALL contain part
>> of
>> God because God is infinite and God is in ALL of us. That does not mean
>> that every individual is God!
>
> This drink is merlot.

The SINGLE GLASS is not merlot. EVERY glass has merlot in it. No glass is more special than another glass in that respect.

>> God is not infinite for the sum total of all finite things is greater
>> than
>> God. God becomes another THING (idol) amongst many.
>
> The first rule of mathematics is that Math is a tool of thought

Obviously you don't understand it!

One glass of merlot does not equal all the merlot in the world.

There are millions of glasses of merlot in the world!

IF

Jesus = one glass of merlot
God = all the merlot in the world

THEN

One glass of merlot DOES NOT EQUAL all the merlot in the world

All the merlot in the world cannot be contained in one ordinary glass.

SO .....

Jesus DOES NOT EQUAL God

If Jesus is anything LESS than the infinite One God then he is NOT God at all in any way. At best he is only a MINI-god who has God within him.

"God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21).
NOT "God WAS Christ"

OR

"Part of all the merlot in the world was in this single wine glass which was used for special occassions."

NOT

"All the merlot in the world was fully contained in this single wine glass."

>> i.e. God is greater than the sum of all individuals (including Jesus of
>> Nazareth). All individulas are included in the infinite God but the
>> infinite God cannot be fully contained in any one individual.
>
> You certainly have a thing about this containment problem.

You certainly are stupid in misunderstanding basic mathematics.

If Jesus is anything LESS than the infinite One God then he is NOT God at all in any way. At best he is only a FINITE MINI-god who has part of the INFINITE God within him.

You should also read your Bible ......

"He (THE INFINITE ONE GOD) is not a (FINITE) man, as I am" Job 9:32

"the Glory of Israel (THE INFINITE ONE GOD) will not lie nor repent; for He (THE INFINITE ONE GOD) is not a (FINITE ) man, that He (THE INFINITE ONE GOD) should repent." I Samuel 15:29

--
"I (THE INFINITE ONE GOD) am (THE INFINITE ) God, and not (FINITE) man" Hosea 11:9

--
"In [THE INFINITE ONE GOD, YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED FINITE HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

###########################################################

PART OF THE INFINITE ONE GOD WAS IN THE FINITE CHRIST. (2 Cor. 5:19-21).

NOT

THE INFINITE ONE GOD WAS THE FINITE CHRIST.

############################################################

Don't trade the INFINITE ONE GOD for a FINITE IDOL!!!!!

What does "SON OF MAN" mean???????

{ 12:28 PM, 24/2/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

Look at what the JEWS say since JESUS WAS JEWISH!!!!!

"SON OF MAN: from THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=965&letter=S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Contrast to Deity.

The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in general, as
opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship; expressing also the
larger, unlimited implications of humanity as differentiated from limited
(e.g., national) forms and aspects of human life. Thus, contrasted with the
"sons of God" ("bene Elohim") are the "daughters of man" ("benot ha-adam"),
women taken by the former, non-human or super-human, beings as wives (Gen.
vi. 2 et seq.). As expressing difference from God, the term occurs in the
blessing of Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son
of man, that he should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). Similarly, David appealing
to Saul puts Yhwh over and against the children of men (I Sam. xxvi. 19).
The punishment of God, also, is contrasted with that of the "children of
men," the former being much more severe, as appears from the promise
solemnly given to David (II Sam. vii. 14). God alone knows the heart of the
"children of man" (II Chron. vi. 29 et seq.). In the prayer in which this
thought is expressed, "man" is used in distinction to the "people of
Israel"; indeed, "children of men" appears to mark a contrast to "children
of Israel" in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8, R. V.).

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the
difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the
phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the
omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven
upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The
faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies
will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men"
is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).

"Sons of men," or "children of men," designates also the slanderers and
evil-doers in contrast to the righteous, that is, Israel (Ps. lvii. 5 [A. V.
4], lviii. 2 [A. V. 1]). It occurs most frequently, however, as a synonym
for "mankind," "the human race" (Ps. xc. 3, cvii. 8, cxv. 16, cxlv. 12); it
has this sense also in the passage in which wisdom is said to delight with
the "sons of men" (Prov. viii. 31). Job(xvi. 21) employs the expression in
the passionate plea for his rights while he is contending against God and
against his neighbors. But Bildad insists that the "son of man," who is a
mere worm, can not be justified with God (Job xxv. 4-6). In the same spirit
the prophet (Isa. li. 12) censures Israel for being afraid of "the son of
man which shall be made as grass" when Yhwh is their Comforter; but in Isa.
lvi. 2-3 the Sabbath is extolled as making the "son of man" (i.e., any man,
regardless of birth) blessed; indeed, God has His eyes "open upon all the
ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways" (Jer.
xxxii. 19).

The meaning of the term as employed in these passages admits of no doubt; it
connotes in most cases the mortality of man, his dependence upon God, while
in only a few it serves to differentiate the rest of the human race from
Israel.

In Ezekiel, Daniel, and Enoch.

In Ezekiel the term occurs in Yhwh's communications as the prevailing form
of address to the prophet (ii. 1; iii. 1, 4, 10, 17; iv. 1 et al.; in all
about 90 times). It has been held that it conveyed the special idea that a
wide chasm stood between God, the speaker, and the prophet so addressed, but
that it implied at the same time that Ezekiel was considered to be the ideal
man. This view must be abandoned as unwarranted. The term "ben adam" is
merely a cumbersome but solemn and formal substitute for the personal
pronoun, such substitution being due, perhaps, to the influence of
Assyro-Babylonian usage (see Delitzsch, "Wörterbuch," s.v. "Amelu"; comp.
"zir amiluti" in the Babylonian myth concerning Adapa).

Similarly in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man," and
occurs in the inscriptions in Syriac, Mandaic, Talmudic, and other dialects
(see Nathanael Schmidt in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl." iv. 4707-4708).
In Dan. vii. 13, the passage in which it occurs in Biblical Aramaic, it
certainly connotes a "human being." Many see a Messianic significance in
this verse, but in all probability the reference is to an angel with a human
appearance, perhaps Michael.

"Son of man" is found in the Book of Enoch, but never in the original
discourses. It occurs, however, in the Noachian interpolations (lx. 10,
lxxi. 14), in which it has clearly no other meaning than "man," if, indeed,
Charles' explanation ("Book of Enoch," p. 16), that the interpolator misused
the term, as he does all other technical terms, is untenable. In that part
of the Book of Enoch known as the "Similitudes" it is met with in the
technical sense of a supernatural Messiah and judge of the world (xlvi. 2,
xlviii. 2, lxx. 27); universal dominion and preexistence are predicated of
him (xlviii. 2, lxvii. 6). He sits on God's throne (xlv. 3, li. 3), which is
His own throne. Though Charles does not admit it, these passages betray
Christian redaction and emendation.

Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the
Messiah. The New Testament expression ? ???? ??? ???????? is a translation
of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as
the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities
of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the
epistles ascribed to Paul is significant. Psalm viii. 5-7 is quoted in ?eb.
ii. 6 as referring to Jesus, but outside the Gospels, Acts vii. 56 is the
only verse in the New Testament in which the title is employed; and here it
may be a free translation of the Aramaic for "a man," or it may have been
adopted from Luke xxii. 69.
(see image) Head-Piece Employed by the Soncinos.(From the Earlier Prophets,
printed in 1485.)

In the New Testament.

In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers
(among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus,
speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in
a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this
meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the
influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological
construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church.
To this construction reference is made in Abbahu's controversial saying in
Ta'an. 65b. Indeed, examination of many of thepassages shows that in the
mouth of Jesus the term was an equivalent for the personal pronoun "I."E. G.
H.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who was Jesus talking to?

{ 1:31 PM, 23/2/2007 } { Posted in Jesus of Nazareth } { 0 comments } { Link }

"MY GOD! MY GOD! Why have you forsaken me?"

WHO was Jesus talking to ??????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jesus is God

Jesus was talking to another God

THEN

there must be more than One God

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jesus is the only One God

THEN

God forsakes himself

{ Last Page } { Page 1 of 3 } { Next Page }