Colt
Well-Known Member
Translation= you got called out for support of Israels nationalist, racist ethno-state while trying to accuse others of bigotry simply for pointing out the foundation of Israels claims.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Upon this rock", which rock?
- Thread starter Colt
- Start date
Colt
Well-Known Member
Israel developed a "chosen people" arrogance as Judaism evolved away from Abrahams faith and trust in God. Between Abram and the majority of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death, quite a lot changed. Jesus recapped it in his final blistering condemnation of Israel:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your fathers. 33You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?34Because of this, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. Luke 13:31–35)
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I don't see why both aren't true. Obviously not everyone accepts Jesus' gospel.
Sorry yet to completely answer the points, and to do justice to what I understand of the Bible's ideas, that was only trying to be sufficient in providing an answer.
In my opinion.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Its true that Christ was crucified, but that wasnt the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus lived, taught and preached. The religion of Jesus was replaced by a religion about Jesus.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
So what exactly do you think the religion of Jesus was?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, you think Jesus lied when he said the Paraclete would help guide his Church until the end of time? Or maybe he was just wrong?
IMO, it really doesn't make much of a difference one way or another, but it does to some.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Salvation by faith in the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of ALL mankind, not an especially chosen few. In the Gospel of Jesus, we are forgiven by repenting and receiving it and in turn forgiving others. Self-forgetfulness and service to others was central to the faith life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
As do most religions and religious people. The many mansions statement comes to mind. Even Atheists claim a superior viewpoint to those of religious variants. Culturally speaking, when raised to believe a certain way, that's typically the way most will view things. Search the word of truth, rightly divide the scriptures, study to show yourself approved are all relevant teachings, but then are Bahaullah's or Mahamad's teachings any less relevant? How about Gandi's or other Avatars, Sages, and teachers of truth? It might be arrogance. Pride comes before a fall, or so it's been stated. Truth can be as simple as understanding fact from fiction, or as complex as knowing and understanding so little that gravity seems more like magic than physics.
Colt
Well-Known Member
The Kingdom of Heaven established when Jesus was on the earth was a fellowship of believers in the Fatherhood of God (the Rock) who bore witness to the identity of his Son. The institutional church became an unintentional replacement for the Kingdom of Heaven ideal. The evil of the church wasn't so much its existence rather it's that it replaced the Kingdom of Heaven at least for a time. The church was a re-Sanhedrin. But Jesus did say that they would respect in heaven whatever the guys set up on earth so YES, Jesus has fostered the church as the best exponent of his life's work. Eventually the original, conceptually simple Gospel will subdue the world.
Last edited:
Colt
Well-Known Member
I'm sympathetic with the Israelites, Abrahams blind faith in the future of his descendants was just that, blind! He trusted God but had no insight into the coming of the Son incarnate. Subsequently, century after century the Jewish people lived with an expectant faith and tons of speculation and conjecture about how events would play out. Notice that it was mostly unlearned common people who believed in Jesus. The theology lawyers stumbled over their rigid expectations of a Jewish Messiah.
All religions contain spiritual truth. There are people outside of religions that know spiritual truth.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I agree that there people outside of religions that know spiritual truth. There's a piece in the scriptures that suggest all the tribes of the earth will come from a certain lineage. I'm thinking the Levites were some of the first. Malachi alludes to this, as well as a time of purification on earth at the Lord's coming. It's a spiritual thing, but this does not negate the possible violence during and leading to. The rock - a house built on a rock, stands during such trying times, or it is better able to than those without a firm foundation.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Doesn't sound different to me. The only difference is we know now who the Messiah is. So we pray to and through him to the Father. Again most don't have this faith so how can it be everyone?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe reread Acts and the epistles because it sets up the sequencing of those appointed by the Twelve that is the Church, and this sequencing continued on into the 2nd century and beyond, verified through sources dating back to that period. And you can see verification of this from this non-Catholic source: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia
Colt
Well-Known Member
Like I said they set up a church.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As Jesus and the Twelve did, and this Church clearly survives professing Jesus' message. However, because of disputes and splintering, the Church is not singular at this time. Is believe this essential for salvation? Certainly not, imo.
I understand the splintering of the church is the separation of the wheat and tares; where the wheat is Yeshua's teachings...
It is essential to take that to pieces to comprehend the Great Deception:
The Essenes rejected Pharisaic oral traditions, and the Levitical priestly ideas that were canonized in Babylon.
The Nasoraeans were from the Essenes, practising a permanent Nazarite vow; where if we're to be separated to God, why not always do that.
Yeshua's original disciples were Ebionites fulfilling Zechariah 11:11, that the 'Poor of the Flock knew it was prophesied'; which is where the Mandaeans escaped Jerusalem before the 2nd temple destruction, as they'd listened to Yeshua's teachings.
Paul and Simon were Pharisaic, where they created Christianity, which eat meat, drank alcohol, and didn't practise advanced meditation, of that we can all hear God, if our temple is clean (Essenes).
If we understand Zechariah 11: Yeshua came to nullify both the Abrahamic (Zechariah 11:10), and Sinai covenant (Zechariah 11:12-14), as the 3 worthless leaders, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites (Zechariah 11:5-8) had taken over from listening to God's prophets.
When we look at what John, Paul, and Simon taught it is all based on the Pharisaic oral tradition, "that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation" - thus they misunderstood the Bible, and taught that the Messiah came to atone for the sins of the world; which is contrary to the Law, and Testimony of Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels (Isaiah 8:11-22).
In recognizing these contrasts between the man made Pharisaic ideas, and understanding what God ordained, then we would all become better people; else the world is full of hypocrisy, and many will simply be removed from reality, for not understanding these things according to prophecy.
In my opinion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What you are missing with the above is that Jesus definitely was of the Pharisee tradition that included commentary. The "sermon", for example, was first used by the Pharisees as far as we know, and it is part of the "commentary system" used by them including today in both the Jewish and the Christian traditions.I understand the splintering of the church is the separation of the wheat and tares; where the wheat is Yeshua's teachings...
It is essential to take that to pieces to comprehend the Great Deception:
The Essenes rejected Pharisaic oral traditions, and the Levitical priestly ideas that were canonized in Babylon.
The Nasoraeans were from the Essenes, practising a permanent Nazarite vow; where if we're to be separated to God, why not always do that.
Yeshua's original disciples were Ebionites fulfilling Zechariah 11:11, that the 'Poor of the Flock knew it was prophesied'; which is where the Mandaeans escaped Jerusalem before the 2nd temple destruction, as they'd listened to Yeshua's teachings.
Paul and Simon were Pharisaic, where they created Christianity, which eat meat, drank alcohol, and didn't practise advanced meditation, of that we can all hear God, if our temple is clean (Essenes).
If we understand Zechariah 11: Yeshua came to nullify both the Abrahamic (Zechariah 11:10), and Sinai covenant (Zechariah 11:12-14), as the 3 worthless leaders, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites (Zechariah 11:5-8) had taken over from listening to God's prophets.
When we look at what John, Paul, and Simon taught it is all based on the Pharisaic oral tradition, "that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation" - thus they misunderstood the Bible, and taught that the Messiah came to atone for the sins of the world; which is contrary to the Law, and Testimony of Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels (Isaiah 8:11-22).
In recognizing these contrasts between the man made Pharisaic ideas, and understanding what God ordained, then we would all become better people; else the world is full of hypocrisy, and many will simply be removed from reality, for not understanding these things according to prophecy.
In my opinion.
I find the problem with this, is when we look up the Essenes, some sites go as far as saying they were a sect of the Pharisees.
Our knowledge of what happened, has been heavily influenced by those who wrote the history books.
The amount of condemnations of Pharisaic mentality, and the amount of Essene ideas, would make me believe that though Yeshua knew their doctrine, he wasn't one of them, else his whole testimony doesn't add up (Matthew 5:20).
In my opinion.
Salam
Simon (a) was not pre-chosen by God before this world like Jesus (a) and Prophets (a). He was chosen in this world, but was a disciple who fate is still volatile at the level of other disciples but he was the best disciple so was chosen on that basis. But without the pre-chosen on earth, you have no choice but to choose none-prechosen and then hope people hold them accountable and keep them holding the torch and leadership till a pre-chosen shows up.
Paul (a) was a gnostic mystic saint, despite what Muslims might say. But at one point it seems, the true scholars of Christianity and the true saints became unknown and people deviated.
This was perhaps partially as seeing the church invulnerable from misguidance.
Elyas (a) was the Imam in the sense of being light of God and instance of the holy spirit between Jesus (a) and Mohammad (s). He came back for a reason, and was picked out of all of the predecessors for a reason, and was kept alive for a reason.
Simon (a) was the social and outward leader, and this is why Paul (a) elaborated the role of the sword of God and holy spirit concept with respect to God's chosen (a).
Simon (a) was not pre-chosen by God before this world like Jesus (a) and Prophets (a). He was chosen in this world, but was a disciple who fate is still volatile at the level of other disciples but he was the best disciple so was chosen on that basis. But without the pre-chosen on earth, you have no choice but to choose none-prechosen and then hope people hold them accountable and keep them holding the torch and leadership till a pre-chosen shows up.
Paul (a) was a gnostic mystic saint, despite what Muslims might say. But at one point it seems, the true scholars of Christianity and the true saints became unknown and people deviated.
This was perhaps partially as seeing the church invulnerable from misguidance.
Elyas (a) was the Imam in the sense of being light of God and instance of the holy spirit between Jesus (a) and Mohammad (s). He came back for a reason, and was picked out of all of the predecessors for a reason, and was kept alive for a reason.
Simon (a) was the social and outward leader, and this is why Paul (a) elaborated the role of the sword of God and holy spirit concept with respect to God's chosen (a).