Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20
God is the author of confusion? Only men can create these things.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Heb 8:7
Quote:
Look at the context, why would Jesus be talking about circumcision when he was just talking about their blood lust? Why would Jesus call their [fore]father, "Ham," when Abraham's original name was Abram?
John 8:42-44
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Heb 8:7
John 8:42-44
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Fault springs only from fault.
Why do we not understand the speech of the many madmen? only because the madmen can't speak well enough, it is their responsibility to spread their message, and they fail, because they are failures.
We can thus see, that when people hate you, it isn't because you are good, but only because people hate you; there is fault in existence because there is no perfection, as it is, perfection cannot exist and allow fault.
Indeed, however, we must parse the wheat from the chaff; those who seek force have no other means, because weak are their reasons and proofs... as weak as any satan, as weak as any aggressor, as weak as any fiend.
And yet when we see force and aggression from the gods, we blindly excuse them, because we blindly love them, as we identify ourselves with characterizations and stories of them, and faction ourselves with our own imaginations of them. Yet what use do the good have for force and aggression, except out of weakness of the more proper means.
Imagine the whips against the currency exchangers and the promises of fire for those who injure gods with thought-crimes. Yet did Jesus cast a stone against the adulterous? (I know that the "he without sin, cast the first" might be a forgery) Still, if suicide is a sin, Jesus committed it.
Now, if that second covenant was faultless, then no place would have to be sought for a better. The covenant with the Olympians was too harsh, for they seemed to force their piety hypocritically, yet still promising no easy immortality, maintaining such rule simply because Might seems on the surface to make itself Right. So how would the enemy not have thought of such an easy seduction, as a new covenant where mere thought was good enough for surety of being later made into a happy hedonist-slave god in the Monarchy within that Titan Uranus (Heaven).
The Grandfather of lies, is still the Grand, Father, of them. Fault springs only from Fault.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 04-22-2014 at 02:49 AM..
Jesus walked the streets and preached of a God that differed from Moses's, which is punishable by death, and Jesus also healed on the Sabbath. Moses had a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, so, according to the Bible, Jesus most certainly sinned and deserved to die.
That is complete nonsense. We've been over this before. You have demonstrated you don't have a clue what the Bible actually teaches.
I thinking JC probably couldn't have avoided bedding some of his female followers, and who could blame him? He would need a diversion from all that preaching.
He probably got it on with 2-3 women at the same time.
That is complete nonsense. We've been over this before. You have demonstrated you don't have a clue what the Bible actually teaches.
No, he is right. "God's rep" in OT said to stone the man who breaks God's command of Sabath (it's in the ten commandments), so that God doesn't unleash hell upon the whole city/country/world/universe. Blasphemy (insulting the sacred) was also a punishable crime both in Rome and Israel. Jesus was accused with both "sins." as well as running away from the law, and inspiring sedition in various ways such as entertaining a claim of Jewish independent/superior monarchy and thus fueling the fires of sedition, etc.
If the OT and Jewish interpretation were wrong, and Jesus could have people "work" on the Sabath and openly insult and name-call the religious establishment, then he wouldn't have sinned. So either those weren't sins even though they contradicted "commands" from "God" in "scripture," or Jesus was hypocritically exempt from the dictated previous rules, so no matter what he did he couldn't sin.
As it stands, Jesus still commited human sacrifice and suicide by proxy, although suicide isn't mentioned as a "sin" and Samuel (born of a virgin) commits a suicide attack by God's direct help. Human sacrifice, however, was outlawed by "God" somewhere in the middle of his covenant with Abraham, who continued the barberic practice of animal sacrifise.
I thinking JC probably couldn't have avoided bedding some of his female followers, and who could blame him? He would need a diversion from all that preaching.
He probably got it on with 2-3 women at the same time.
"He could have sinned and it just isn't written about" is relying on very wild guesses, we should stick to the stories available that are more directly tied to witnesses (although noctoriouslt unreliable) back then.
Someone who wasn't Jewish asked for healing, and he said:
Quote:
And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
Jesus was a man, like any of us. He learned, grew, etc. He may have been a Son of God. But perfection, no. In fact, it's the antithesis of what Jesus wants for us, not to be perfect but to be human. To be able to make mistakes, and because of it relate to other people, who have flaws.
Jesus was a mortal man, he did not sin in the pagan sense. He was sacrificed for being to good and pure because of the sins of the father.
O.k. that's an interesting assertion. what is sinning in the pagan sense?
And I'm guessing you mean "human parents" rather than "Spirit Father" right.
That's the more common liner from Christians, "original sin" and what not.
Yeshua did. He transgressed Torah by not observing Shabbat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
