"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."

[Skeezy]

You mean to say that all the authors of the Bible were holy and perfect folk but the Mormons, the Muslims and Catholics 'threw in their selfish imput'?

Yes over time mans influences were interjected. For example as stated in Christianity the book is the same its the church that is the influence. The truth is still very much in the text its just the church contradicts what the text says to do.

I am not Muslim and only have an outside view. However hearing fractions of the religion and meeting people who practice it you can tell there is much in tune with the Most High however things such as virgins as a prize? Really? An earthly reward? In my relationship with the most high thats a little hard to believe. However, things are explained in a way we can try to understand so I try not to judge too harshly. There's a bit of this in almost every religion as cultures and influence effect churches.


Judging from the books I have dealt with using the bible as home base and venturing out into the parts removed from it and dipping into the books of similar religions Quran etc. . I know using the Bible as home that no man wrote this text without spiritual influence as its prophecies are continually being fulfilled in the manner they say

For example race relations is a divide thats biblical. (Mind you most bigotry of that time goes by nationality) Man cannot fix it. All is explained in throughout the bible and culminated in revelations. Our struggle with it and the future of it is in there.

The bible shows lineage and where everyone came from, it also covers the wickedness of today and who is descended from abominations and has wickedness in their blood. It has messages in it for gods chosen people and amazingly, hardly anyone else truly understands it. Even for his chosen tribe to understand it they must have a real connection with him

Many church sessions can only cover pieces or should I say the pieces they want you to understand. To truly understand you cant rely on any church

 

[Skeezy]

As an example of distortion I again use our race propaganda filled reality.

Almost every important figure is described in the Bible most are dark to light brown. No one important in the Bible is white. However culturally wether your white or black you think of them as white. Does it matter? Yes, when it pertains to the deceit and influence of man. Then when you actually understand who Gods chosen tribe possibly truly is reality makes sense.

I use the word possibly because I'm still learning. But what I have so far fits into the rest of the word to a T.

Revelations tells you who gods people are currently. Those brought by boat, into slavery, who currently live in the land of their captors. That narrows it down a lot. During revelations they return to the holy land and those fighting over it move out of their way.

Now as a black man in the U.S. Do I think this pertains to me? I think so but I always want to be sure that I'm not influencing text to fit me. The text is fairly clear but I still say that it was in trying to learn my real history and revealing what has been taken from my people, that led me to the possibility of being descended from Hebrew as Hebrews originate from africa..

The bible tells you who everyone is descended from and who has wickedness in their blood and gain rule and those people per the book will become last and the last shall become first

Even for me this is distorted by race as Not all black people in U.S. are African, in reality some are native some are from the Caribbean some are descended from the moorish . Truth is,, I dont even know what I really am though a DNA test would give some idea of what I am mostly.

 

[Skeezy]

So around the time the Bible texts were written it was a very special time, under a kind of holy spell and then things got degraded, like towards a kind of dark age?

The Most high uses people. He uses the righteous and the wicked much like the apostles. However man is impure and pretty much always goes awry. "Not even the heavens are pure in "God's" view"

Man cannot outsmart the Most high though. To me its comically clear as those in power somehow continue to fulfill prophecy instead of avoiding it as it is their downfall.

 

[Skeezy]

If I am correct and many of the black people are descended Hebrew then the book explains that our slavery is because we yet again did not follow his statutes.

We will continue to be punished as a people and I think if you look at the 80's the war on black neighborhoods our definition as criminals which isn't new and started soon as slavery ended. Also the current divide on our humanity and how we are treated this all is a spiritual wall.

Black people don't want revenge just peace and fairness which is amazing, however... God does... per the book.

The wickedness of reality is laid out in the book. How could any man...write whats going on now. Back then.

It even refers to a weaponized space station and God smacking it down upon arrival......


Space force anyone?


Revelations is scarey because its accurate

 

[metis]

I gotta be brief-- sorry.

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.

It comes from an early Church tradition, but the fact that Mary has a special designation is scriptural with Elizabeth's statement to Mary.

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 ..."

A "graven image" is never defined in Torah, thus it's conjectural as to what the author had it mind. What is not conjectural, however, is that we are not to worship any object-- and we don't.

Also, a reminder that it was God who ordered Moses to make and put a serpent on his staff prior to crossing the Reed Sea, and also to put seraphim and cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.

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.

"The book" is also worldly as it was written by people of the world to people of the world-- it just didn't float down from heaven.

1.Changing the lords day from Saturday to sunday

This was done gradually done by the Church starting at the end of the 1st century and mostly completed during the 2nd century. The Sabbath observance was mandated by Jewish Law [all 613 Commandments], but Gentiles are not under Jewish Law.

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.

No, they are not. Symbols were altered to fit into Christian theology, thus not the other way around. The Bible is full of symbols taken from other sources, thus there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that.

In gods eyes you are not supposed to worship mary.

We don't worship Mary as that is forbidden under Canon Law.

You have to study the book usually in a group to truly gain understanding

I've studied Christian theology for many decades now and taught theology for several decades to adults in both a church and a synagogue.

Someone clearly has been "poisoning the well" to you by telling you highly bigoted falsehoods.

 

[Skeezy]

I gotta be brief-- sorry.

It comes from an early Church tradition, but the fact that Mary has a special designation is scriptural with Elizabeth's statement to Mary.

A "graven image" is never defined in Torah, thus it's conjectural as to what the author had it mind. What is not conjectural, however, is that we are not to worship any object-- and we don't.

Also, a reminder that it was God who ordered Moses to make and put a serpent on his staff prior to crossing the Reed Sea, and also to put seraphim and cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.

"The book" is also worldly as it was written by people of the world to people of the world-- it just didn't float down from heaven.

This was done gradually done by the Church starting at the end of the 1st century and mostly completed during the 2nd century. The Sabbath observance was mandated by Jewish Law [all 613 Commandments], but Gentiles are not under Jewish Law.

No, they are not. Symbols were altered to fit into Christian theology, thus not the other way around. The Bible is full of symbols taken from other sources, thus there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that.

We don't worship Mary as that is forbidden under Canon Law.

I've studied Christian theology for many decades now and taught theology for several decades to adults in both a church and a synagogue.

Someone clearly has been "poisoning the well" to you by telling you highly bigoted falsehoods.

All good. not even going to rebutle the majority. I don't expect to convert anyone as most of this is how the word speaks to me.

I will say that I went to a catholic school for a few years and it sure felt like they were praying to the statue of Mary.

 

[John1.12]

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?

THE gospel is 1 cor 15.1,-4 . 100% Of saved people have believed this .

 

[John1.12]

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.

That's not what I said..Re read what I said please.

 

[John1.12]

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.

Its highly probable that Christians who believe Mormons are Christian , do so because they don't know what they teach . I didn't as a new believer . I would have said they were Christian.

 

[Jane.Doe]

THE gospel is 1 cor 15.1,-4 . 100% Of saved people have believed this .

That's not what I said..Re read what I said please.

Its highly probable that Christians who believe Mormons are Christian , do so because they don't know what they teach . I didn't as a new believer . I would have said they were Christian.

ALL members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("Mormons") believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, buried, are rose again. Salvation comes through faith in Him. That is absolutely foundational. Yes, they are saved Christians.

If you want to ignore these facts in favor of "anti-cult" falsehoods... well that's your choice. Doesn't remotely affect anyone.

 

[Katzpur]

That's not what I said..Re read what I said please.

You said, "100% of saved Christians believed on the same Gospel for their salvation." I'm assuming you believe yourself to be among the saved. You believe in the gospel as you personally understand it. Therefore, if a person is saved, he believes in the gospel as you understand it.

Or to put it another way: I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ will all my heart. You think it's a "different gospel" than you believe in. Therefore, you believe I am not saved.

 

[Katzpur]

Its highly probable that Christians who believe Mormons are Christian , do so because they don't know what they teach . I didn't as a new believer . I would have said they were Christian.

And God still does. Perhaps you'd better bring Him up to speed.

 

[Katzpur]

THE gospel is 1 cor 15.1,-4 . 100% Of saved people have believed this .

There you go again, Barry. So tell me, when did God appoint you as His spiritual advisor and tell you it was your job to say who's saved and who isn't? Talk about egotistical!

 

[sojourner]

what we see in other religions and philosphies is a claim on Jesus . As a Christian we of course have our differences on certain verses and doctrines . But this is within christianity. We see the issue is down to our free will and different opinions and such . But imagine to our horror ,when we see other religions who make a claim on Jesus and what he taught and they have not the same world view . Its hard enough within the same worldview , But what we see is all these claims from ' outside ' and how radical theses claims are .
Here are a few
Mormonsim teaches Jesus went to America to preach to the natives .

Jehovah's_Witnesses teach that Jesus is micheal the Arch Angel .

Hinduism and Buddhism see Jesus as a spiritual guide of sorts . An enlightened one.

Islam. He's a prophet. Not the Son of God and that he certainly didn't die on a cross or resurrect.

We could name countless religions who have a claim on Jesus . Its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the bible . Of course this shows he impacted the world and not Just in Jerusalem, but the whole world . But we have radically different claims on him .

Thoughts?

There are several perspectives on Jesus in the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

I believe if we just read it at face value . in discovery mode, the narrative is easy to follow .

There is no real “face value” when dealing with linguistic, cultural, snd temporal differences within texts.

 

[sojourner]

You don't think the author had intent and that intent is discoverable?

Not through a surface reading.

 

[sojourner]

THE gospel is 1 cor 15.1,-4 . 100% Of saved people have believed this .

The gospel is: “Turn your lives around; God’s imperial rule has come near.”

 

[sojourner]

I think it can come down to opting for the most logical testimony of Jesus. For example Islam teaches things about Jesus that does not line up with the NT description. Now Muhammad's accounts of Jesus come 600 years after the fact . He never met Jesus, never lived in his lifetime . Now he makes claims about Jesus as do lots of religions . Claims that completely contradict the NT . The NT is criticised because its accused of 'late ' writings after the events took place ( which makes perfect sense given the persecution at the time ) But here we have other religions making claims about Jesus hundreds of years after the effect. They never met Jesus.

Neither did any of the NT writers.

 

[sojourner]

Yes your free to do so of course. The average date for the NT writers is 50 - 65 ad however.

No it isn’t.

 

[sojourner]

Except for Paul, that is not at all my understanding. So, for example ...

MARK
Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[6] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[7] It was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, as an inferior abridgement of what was regarded as the most important gospel, Matthew.[8] The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark.

MATTHEW
Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[9][10] The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.[11][12] He was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[13] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[14][15]

LUKE
The author is anonymous;[6] the traditional view that it was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[7][8] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

JOHN
John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[5] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[6] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[7][8] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[9][10] and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[11]

See, also, Early Christian Writings.

The earliest text is 1 Thess. Written around 48 CE. Paul’s writings typically predate the gospels.