firedragon
Veteran Member
But Titus is pseudonymous.
-
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!
"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."
- Thread starter John1.12
- Start date
But Titus is pseudonymous.
Have you read Titus?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats irrelevant. I can ask you the same question. Have you read Titus? You can ask this same question from the whole world, including all the bible scholars in the world "have you read Titus"? You can go back in time and ask Saul himself the question "Have you read Titus"?
It is still irrelevant. It is still Pseudepigrapha.
It is not Pseudepigrapha. There that has settled it .
firedragon
Veteran Member
It has been known to be since Schleiermacher, 200 years ago.
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Barry Johnson, are you being drawn away from the thread topic.... drawn into pointless distractions? Word Smithing?
Back to ‘What Jesus really meant...’!!
Im new to this thread so excuse me if I have missed pertinent arguments - but in my mind it is clear what Jesus meant when he said and did what he did.
Jesus is the ‘Last Adam’, a man made in the image of God, anointed by God, the Father, to do good and bring salvation to the nations (Isaiah 42:1).
This same Jesus was ‘sent by God’ after the anointing and tempting in the wilderness, to deliver the testimony about the Father (the Jewish worshipped deity entitled, ‘GOD’). The ‘sending’ is, as pointed out above, after Jesus was anointed and tested to see whether he would misuse the powers of the Holy Spirit of God placed on him BY GOD.
Jesus is not God, and how can he be if he is the image of God... how is an image the thing it is the image of? But then again, mankind is image of God but strange doctrine declares a difference between the man, Jesus, and mankind, of which Jesus is a member of mankind...
Scriptures declares that Jesus is the second and last Adam (previously stated) which means that whatever Jesus is, the first Adam was likewise: Born sinless, holy, and righteous and fully carrying out the works the Father (God) gave him to do - until he allowed sin to inflict him. He was, as Luke 3:38 states, ‘Son of God’... again, scriptural words, and lineage, denied by strange doctrine.
Ask what ‘Son of God’ means and strange doctrine will not answer with credibility. It will declare that ‘GOD’ (BOTH) procreated an offspring OF HIS OWN KIND (Spirit???) and that ‘the Son’ was NEVER PROCREATED nor CREATED. But yet strange doctrine cannot explain the existence of someone who is offspring of God and yet the same God as he is son of. Imagine saying that the Son of a king IS KING!!! A son of a woman IS WOMAN...
A strange doctrine trick is this:
- “An offspring of a dog is a dog”
- “An offspring of a human is a human”
- “The offspring of God is God”
(p.s. Notice the INDEFINITE ARTICLE (‘a’, ‘an’) for the flesh parent and offspring but which is missing when concluding the SPIRIT offspring and parent... many people miss this point ... a trick... and why does strange doctrine need tricks to persuade its congregation or confuse its detractors - can liars be part of the truth of God?)
So, what did Jesus mean really when he called himself ‘the Son of God’, or rather, specifically, that ‘God is my Father’?
Well, Jesus EXPLAINED what being a Son MEANT:
- ‘I am doing the works of my Father’
- ‘All who follow the spirit [of God] are children of God’
What did Jesus mean by his words to Thomas:
- ‘Touch me.... I AM NOT A SPIRIT...’
Yet, Jesus did not berate Thomas over this outburst of surprise... instead, Jesus DID BERATE HIM over his disbelief:
- ‘Thomas, because you have seen me you [have] believed [?]
- ‘BLESSED are those who believe but have not seen [the miraculous things you have seen] and yet believe’
What else?
Can you ask or set (it is your thread) examples of what Jesus said or did that you want to explore what he really did mean....!?
Last edited:
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Interesting...
I can’t ask what Jesus meant by ‘I created all things’ so I can only ask:
- Did Jesus say he created all things?
reformed theologians be saying all manner of things. Why do you trust his opinion over your own?
Look ,its straightforward. If the Bible says Jesus created ALL Things ( Col .1) and that all things consist because of him . This is God, by any definition you care to imagine .
Colt
Well-Known Member
Son means God is his Father. The Father delegates powers and authority to his divine Son who in turn creates and delegates to his subordinates all the way down the chain to Humans.
No, Jesus never said that he created all things. He never even said he created some things.
God the Son stood before us anonymously.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not only his. Many. I am not trying to offend you, so don't misunderstand me. I quoted Schleiermacher's name to you just to show you that this is nothing new. I understand the traditional view is this was written by Paul. But there are many many scholars who think the same, more precisely and with more advanced scholarship.
Dont think that I am just throwing random dismissals at you BJ. I am not. And I would urge you to not dismiss scholarship by saying they are all reformed theologians or atheists or Muslim or Jewish or anything of the sort. First, you are mistaken, and second, that is called the genetic fallacy.
I would suggest that you read Jeromes Biblical Commentary (I think I got the name right). There is a lot of Christian scholarship or in fact, predominantly christian scholarship and its unanimous that this is a Pseudepigrapha.
Again ,why is all that necessary ? I can assess the text myself by reading it .What we have is a text fully available for us all to read and your saying, " hey but there's a dude from old who is really clever and he thinks....." I can then reply " but I know a dude that's really smart and he says ...." . This isn't rocket science, where we need to go to rocket scientists to understand rocket science.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright. So you have some expertise in this.
Paul is leaving Crete (Titus 1:5) to Ephesus. Sending Tychicus to Crete (Titus 3:12) for who the NT associates Asia Minor. Ephesus (Acts 20:4; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12). Then towards Macedonia Tim is sent at this time (1 Tim 1:3) toward Nicopolis in Epirus, where he proposed to spend a winter (Titus 3:12). From there he went with Titus (Titus 3:12; 2 Tim 4:10) to Rome. Others also joined Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:10-12) before or during the time of his imprisonment and trial (2 Tim 4:16-18, etc.). News of Paul’s misfortune then reached Ephesus; many there turned away from him (2 Tim 1:15), but Onesiphorus left his family and joined his master in Rome (2 Tim 1:17). 2 Tim reports that Paul had recently sent Tychicus, who If Paul were the actual author ofthe Pastorals, the above chronological reconstruction would then need to be fitted into the full life history of the apostle had come to him (from Crete? from Ephesus?), back to Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12). In 2 Tim itself Paul asked Timothy to come quickly to Rome via Troas before winter set in (2 Tim 4:9,13,21). Two winters are clearly mentioned in the Pastorals. It is all this journeying back and forth across the Mediterranean that requires the passage of at least one more winter in the narrative time scheme and thus the lapse of two or more years. How would you fit this into Pauls life. Just one question.
Please explain.
Your personal interpretation of scripture is very unique. Howe does your personal interpretation of this reconcile with the fact that you, I, a Catholic, a Calvinist, and an Orthodox all have very different on some gospel subjects?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh, yeah? And where does it say that in the Bible -- that everybody who is "saved" believes exactly as you do? Oh come on, Barry.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It is absolutely impossible to say what percentage of Christian "denominations" believe Mormons to be Christians. There are over 40,000 such denominations in the world today. All we can say with any degree of certainly is that many individual Christians do believe Mormons to be Christians. And again, in the end, it's not going to make one ounce of difference to God what you or anybody else thinks about Mormonism. You're simply not that important, Barry.
Skeezy
Member
I'd like to interject.
The concept of Mary as emaculate is a human notion and not one of the bible. The Bible is very literal when it comes to worship and what god wants.
For example, one of the commandments you are not supposed to worship graven images of anything. Paraphrasing, Nothing in the heavens of the earth and nothing under the sea.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers ..."
Essentially carving images of Jesus or Mary etc and worshipping it breaks a commandment. It is known Mary nor Jesus were white people or Moses or Abraham etc. So essentially you are worshipping false depictions. Which is probably one of the many reasons why the commandment says not to.
My opinion
On top of this most forms of Christianity has essentially become a pagan religion. One that serves the worldy and mind of man versus the book.
A few Ways paganism effected Christianity.
1.Changing the lords day from Saturday to sunday
2. Pagan holidays. God gave specific holidays to celebrate which most christians don't. Valentines, Christmas, Easter and Halloween are all pagan fertility holidays and have pagan rituals such as hanging missletoe etc. Easter involves some deity that changed from a bird to a rabbit etc. They are pagan fertility holidays. The lie is we are celebrating Christianity which is a huge No.
As a matter of fact there is a passage in the Bible not to follow the heathens who celebrate Christmas. Yes the pagan holiday was around even back then.
Jeremiah 10 verses 2-4
2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
The bible is written for those in the future and this flat out tells you do not follow the heathen popularity.
These are just a few example of why I view widespread Christianity as paganism
In gods eyes you are not supposed to worship mary. This is among many ways that widespread Christianity not just catholicism conflict with the actual book. Christianity was paganiszed by Constantine? (A pagan ruler) A very long time ago.
You have to study the book usually in a group to truly gain understanding. Once you understand you know the devil has decieved many.
Last edited:
Skeezy
Member
One more thing. Reading the Bible does very little. You must truly have your heart open to the Most High. My relationship with the book grows as I gain more clarity and I understand that I will never finish gaining understanding or finish the book as its meanings grow as your understandings grow.
Jesus himself did not like churches. The more conflict churches have with the book the more I understand why he didn't. He also explains why though I dont remember the exact verse.
Church is whenever a group of people get together and teach/learn about the bible. You dont need a physical church your body is gods temple. You also can't trick the Most High by going to church, you must seek him as an individual, non cluttered by worldly influences.
In my view.. Most religions from mormon to Muslim to catholic to many others have mans selfish input thrown in but the path to the Most High is still there. Believe in the text and not the church. As you understand what the Most high wants, mans influences fall away
Jesus himself did not like churches. The more conflict churches have with the book the more I understand why he didn't. He also explains why though I dont remember the exact verse.
Church is whenever a group of people get together and teach/learn about the bible. You dont need a physical church your body is gods temple. You also can't trick the Most High by going to church, you must seek him as an individual, non cluttered by worldly influences.
In my view.. Most religions from mormon to Muslim to catholic to many others have mans selfish input thrown in but the path to the Most High is still there. Believe in the text and not the church. As you understand what the Most high wants, mans influences fall away
Skeezy
Member
On a deeper note of just how much the devil has influences the masses.
Gods name is Yahuah (per the book of Enoch). Some pronounce it Yaweh. God is more similar to Goddryel which is lucifers name. Whatever praise doesnt go to the most high goes to the ruler of this world. We are accustomed to giving praise where it doesn't belong
When Adam at the apple to save eve, he gave the world to the devil. This is so clear and all around you
Gods name is Yahuah (per the book of Enoch). Some pronounce it Yaweh. God is more similar to Goddryel which is lucifers name. Whatever praise doesnt go to the most high goes to the ruler of this world. We are accustomed to giving praise where it doesn't belong
When Adam at the apple to save eve, he gave the world to the devil. This is so clear and all around you