Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #276 Share Posted February 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said: Let me preface this by noting that in secular scholarship the nonpseudographical letters of Paul are the earliest Christian writings (predates Gospels/Acts). The Kenosis Hymnal (Jesus empties his powers to take on flesh) in Philippians is believed by some scholars to even predate Paul. Also "even death on a cross" some observe breaks up the rythmic meter in the Koine Greek (may have been added by Paul, or later?). To reiterate the Hymnal looks to be a chant/prayer used in the earliest Christian communities. I used two translations for clarity, and comparison. Also apologies for being wordy with the questions, but it's needed (compartmentalization is a nasty thing). Also note that to Paul Jesus is a preexistent being who God used as an instrument to create the universe, but that's a different matter. Also put aside the lens of the later Gospels please. In the context of what Paul wrote: 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? In other words who would find it a crime just for looking like, and believed to be human that's punishable by death? Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans Jews C) Satan In the context of what Paul wrote: 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if was made known without a doubt that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? In other words who would be against eternal life for humans in that they would not follow through in killing Jesus because it would give said humans a chance at immortality? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans Jews C) Satan Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place (Paul does not say where) of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them? Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God (note: Romans seen their highest God Jupiter & the Jewish God Yahweh as the same deity, but they worshipped it differently)? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)? Satan: Would Satan attack flesh, and, or kill a human? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality? I am sorry, but this is way beyond my knowledge of the subject! If I may make a suggestion mention eightbits, his knowledge on the subject may allow you to receive a worth while answer to the question! Again sorry this is beyond me! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 14, 2022 #277 Share Posted February 14, 2022 13 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said: I am sorry, but this is way beyond my knowledge of the subject! If I may make a suggestion mention eightbits, his knowledge on the subject may allow you to receive a worth while answer to the question! Again sorry this is beyond me! It's just this. Who would most likely kill someone just for looking like a human, and would not kill a human if it meant it would give mankind a chance at immortality? Would it be the Romans, Jews, or Satan? eightbits is an uncertainist, and will just give D-Z as possible answers except A, B, or C. 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #278 Share Posted February 14, 2022 32 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said: It's just this. Who would most likely kill someone just for looking like a human, and would not kill a human if it meant it would give mankind a chance at immortality? Would it be the Romans, Jews, or Satan? eightbits is an uncertainist, and will just give D-Z as possible answers except A, B, or C. First I don’t agree with your assessment of eightbits, but to each his own on that subject! Well I suspect the Christian answer would be Lucifer, because do to his role in Christianity it would not serve his purpose if mankind became immortal! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 14, 2022 #279 Share Posted February 14, 2022 12 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said: First I don’t agree with your assessment of eightbits, but to each his own on that subject! Yes. To each his own. 12 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said: Well I suspect the Christian answer would be Lucifer, because do to his role in Christianity it would not serve his purpose if mankind became immortal! The Christian answer would not be Satan because it does not fit the narrative. I do get A. B, and C all together sometimes from Christians because that's the dance of cognitive dissonance that avoids the context of the questions. Now I'm just going to put the following straight to the point information below for the sake of others because you seem to fluster easy for some reason. Jesus when looked closely resembles a deity derived from OT scripture. In the pseudograph 2 Pet. 1:16 there's pushback against people (likely a group of Christians) that are saying the Gospels are literary fabrications, and then forges an eyewitness account. Later in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 it mentions that there's things in Paul's letters that do not make sense, which is strange in light of 1 Cor. 3:2 & Heb. 5:12 in which converts are taught things easy to understand. Mark the first Gospel written is highly fictive (a parable of OT Patriarchs now Jesus is in the role), and harkens to Pauline theology. The later Matthew/Luke are copying (often verbatim) from Mark, and expand on the Jesus narrative. John knows Mark, and creates his own narrative. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Who (in context of what Paul wrote) would execute someone for the crime of being in human form? Phili. 2:6-8 "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." Who (in context of what Paul wrote) would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them that by doing so it would fulfill God's plan for mankind to have a chance at immortality? 1 Cor. 2:6-8 "6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (Note: "rulers of this age" is reciprocal with Earthly & spiritual powers to the ancient reader) To Paul a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom. This goes against Mathew/Luke/John that push a flesh & blood resurrection (original extant ending of Mark does not have a flesh Jesus walking, or flying around). 1 Cor. 15:49 "49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality." Dirty, or impoverished clothing, and clean, or gleaming clothing were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world. (Mark 14:51-52 "A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.", 16:5 "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.") Rom. 4:25 "who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Note: 1 Cor. 11:23 "betrayed" is contextually reciprocal with "handed over/gave up" in Greek (Rom. 1:24, :26, :28). The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth. The death, resurrection, and exaltation by God of a Jesus is found in OT scripture. Satan does not know who Jesus is. Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Rom. 15:12 "12 and again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope." (Isa. 11:10 LXX). Isa. 11:1 "1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." 1 Cor. 15:24-26 "24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Now there's a Jesus associated with hanging in trees in the OT. Now just as dirty/clean clothes were seen as metaphors for kinds of bodies, so is Five Kings seen as symbolism for flesh as we will see in Philo. Jos. 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua/Jesus said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" Now Philo of Alexandria has the spiritual philosophy of the Divine Word taken right of the OT. Here's just a few examples of Philo's archangel that sounds simular to Paul's Christ Jesus, and the five senses that need regulatiing by the Divine Word. Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Philo: ON ABRAHAM "XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses." Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III "(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them." Now what does this version of Jesus have to do with Buddhism? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #280 Share Posted February 14, 2022 22 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said: Yes. To each his own. The Christian answer would not be Satan because it does not fit the narrative. I do get A. B, and C all together sometimes from Christians because that's the dance of cognitive dissonance that avoids the context of the questions. Now I'm just going to put the following straight to the point information below for the sake of others because you seem to fluster easy for some reason. Jesus when looked closely resembles a deity derived from OT scripture. In the pseudograph 2 Pet. 1:16 there's pushback against people (likely a group of Christians) that are saying the Gospels are literary fabrications, and then forges an eyewitness account. Later in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 it mentions that there's things in Paul's letters that do not make sense, which is strange in light of 1 Cor. 3:2 & Heb. 5:12 in which converts are taught things easy to understand. Mark the first Gospel written is highly fictive (a parable of OT Patriarchs now Jesus is in the role), and harkens to Pauline theology. The later Matthew/Luke are copying (often verbatim) from Mark, and expand on the Jesus narrative. John knows Mark, and creates his own narrative. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Who (in context of what Paul wrote) would execute someone for the crime of being in human form? Phili. 2:6-8 "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." Who (in context of what Paul wrote) would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them that by doing so it would fulfill God's plan for mankind to have a chance at immortality? 1 Cor. 2:6-8 "6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (Note: "rulers of this age" is reciprocal with Earthly & spiritual powers to the ancient reader) To Paul a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom. This goes against Mathew/Luke/John that push a flesh & blood resurrection (original extant ending of Mark does not have a flesh Jesus walking, or flying around). 1 Cor. 15:49 "49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality." Dirty, or impoverished clothing, and clean, or gleaming clothing were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world. (Mark 14:51-52 "A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.", 16:5 "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.") Rom. 4:25 "who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Note: 1 Cor. 11:23 "betrayed" is contextually reciprocal with "handed over/gave up" in Greek (Rom. 1:24, :26, :28). The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth. The death, resurrection, and exaltation by God of a Jesus is found in OT scripture. Satan does not know who Jesus is. Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Rom. 15:12 "12 and again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope." (Isa. 11:10 LXX). Isa. 11:1 "1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." 1 Cor. 15:24-26 "24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Now there's a Jesus associated with hanging in trees in the OT. Now just as dirty/clean clothes were seen as metaphors for kinds of bodies, so is Five Kings seen as symbolism for flesh as we will see in Philo. Jos. 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua/Jesus said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" Now Philo of Alexandria has the spiritual philosophy of the Divine Word taken right of the OT. Here's just a few examples of Philo's archangel that sounds simular to Paul's Christ Jesus, and the five senses that need regulatiing by the Divine Word. Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Philo: ON ABRAHAM "XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses." Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III "(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them." Now what does this version of Jesus have to do with Buddhism? I think you would have been better served if you did this in the first place, I was very clear when I honestly stated that my knowledge of Christianity is very very poor. In my opinion this version of Jesus has nothing to do with Buddhism at all, so I must ask what is the point your trying to make? I also must ask what you mean according to your comments above, that I become flustered very easily I would appreciate it very much if you would point to why you made the comment and what I did to give that impression? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 14, 2022 #281 Share Posted February 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said: I think you would have been better served if you did this in the first place, I was very clear when I honestly stated that my knowledge of Christianity is very very poor. In my opinion this version of Jesus has nothing to do with Buddhism at all, so I must ask what is the point your trying to make? You seem to know enough, and have answered correctly in context of what Paul said. Keep in mind that what I presented is fringe, but has elements of what secular scholars would agree with. Keep in mind that these same scholars though believe Jesus existed, there is disagreement to what Jesus actually said, and did (due to the state of extant evidence (the Gospels are problematic). Finding comparisons with Jesus, and Buddha is much more complicated than you realise. Keep in mind decades ago the biblical patriarchs were considered historical, but today it's no longer the case with some exceptions (for example King David if real was most likely just a tribal chieftain). 1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said: I also must ask what you mean according to your comments above, that I become flustered very easily I would appreciate it very much if you would point to why you made the comment and what I did to give that impression? I made the questions (though wordy) which I thought were clear with just enough background knowledge, but you just didn't even try. Don't you find it weird what Paul said compared to the standard Gospel story which you must be aware of? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #282 Share Posted February 14, 2022 3 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said: You seem to know enough, and have answered correctly in context of what Paul said. Keep in mind that what I presented is fringe, but has elements of what secular scholars would agree with. Keep in mind that these same scholars though believe Jesus existed, there is disagreement to what Jesus actually said, and did (due to the state of extant evidence (the Gospels are problematic). Finding comparisons with Jesus, and Buddha is much more complicated than you realise. Keep in mind decades ago the biblical patriarchs were considered historical, but today it's no longer the case with some exceptions (for example King David if real was most likely just a tribal chieftain). I made the questions (though wordy) which I thought were clear with just enough background knowledge, but you just didn't even try. Don't you find it weird what Paul said compared to the standard Gospel story which you must be aware of? First you didn’t answer the question I asked you. You flatter me that you think I have any idea what the gospel story said, but I honestly don’t have any idea just like ‘I previous said! Christian biblical scripture is something I know next to nothing about, it’s not something I have ever been interested in, read or researched in anyway. The reason I started this thread was to see what comparisons other members would make from a Christian point of view! My knowledge of Buddhist Philosophies on the other hand, are 100 times greater than what ‘I know about Christian Scripture! It is something I am interested in, and is something I am learning because I also practice those philosophies, however, even when it comes Buddhism my knowledge is also limited because I chose to practice it very late in life! Please understand, The reason I didn’t answer your questions wasn’t because I wanted to mess with you, I honestly don’t know enough to give an informed and reasonable answer! I have been honest with you across the board, and I would not do otherwise if I had the knowledge to do so I would have shared my thoughts on the subject! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted February 14, 2022 #283 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said: First I don’t agree with your assessment of eightbits, but to each his own on that subject! No, seriously. Davros and I are twins, separated at birth. He knows me better than I know myself Before I fulfill his prophecy, though, I have a question (before I ever was an uncertaintist, I was and am Irish, we who answer questions with questions). @Davros of Skaro: Given that A-C include Romans and Jews, does it matter to your inquiry that Paul did not write "obendient even unto death on a cross"? As you note, that line breaks the meter of the passage (although that happens in musical compositions for effect), and has a meter of its own. It is very difficult to translate (although that happens in poetry, too). Hypekoos mechri thanatou thanatou de staurou = obedient unto death, a death even a cross. It is translated "death on a cross" because that's what happens in the later Gospel according to Mark and so on thorugh the even later canonical gospels. Nowhere does Paul say that Jesus died as a result of crucifixion. The only crucifxion extant undisputed Paul ever mentions with enough detail to determine the cause of death is the Jewish scriptural one (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, at Galatians 3:13), where the cause of death is stoning or other blunt trauma, after which the corpse is crucified. (This penalty is still practiced in Saudi Arabia, except that the cause of death there is decapitation.) Would (some) Jews (not necessarily "officials") kill a man who suggested that he was God? John thinks so (8:58-59), and the death would have been by stoning; Luke apparently agrees (4:28-30), although he cites a known variation of stoning (throw the victim from a height - throw the body onto the stones, rather than vice versa) for the lesser blasphemy of proclaiming himself a prophet. Then again, Paul doesn't exclude a Roman crucifxion, and if Philo of Alexandria is reliable, Pilate might crucify any non-citizen for whatever reason suited him (rebel, reputed magician, being in the presence of an armed individual ... whatever). The only case for devils (instead of Jews or Romans) that I can see is if Jesus is a wholly celestial figure in the Doherty-Carrier style. While I thinks that's possible, I think some human Jesus is more likely. Plus, there is a "middle case," that (in Paul's mind) there is both a human Jesus and a celestial Jesus, just as (in some attested belief systems) whatever happens on earth reflects, or is reflected by, something that happens in the heavens. Plus, of course, what happens in Mark is a possibility: Romans and Jews combine to kill Jesus. Bottom line: Not D through Z, but rather on the slender information available, I don't see a strong basis for choosing among A, B, or A and B in Paul's thought. Given that Paul apparently believes in some form of Satan, any human act might be "and C", or if Doherty-Carrier happen to be right, just C. Since I'm not a Christian apologist, I can just admit I don't know. And I do admit that. Edited February 14, 2022 by eight bits 5 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #284 Share Posted February 14, 2022 4 minutes ago, eight bits said: No, seriously. Davros and I are twins, separated at birth. He knows me better than I now myself Before I fulfill his prophecy, though, I have a question (before I ever was an uncertaintist, I was and am Irish, we who answer questions with questions). @Davros of Skaro: Given that A-C include Romans and Jews, does it matter to your inquiry that Paul did not write "obendient even unto death on a cross"? As you note, that line breaks the meter of the passage (although that happens in musical compositions for effect), and has a meter of its own. It is very difficult to translate (although that happens in poetry, too). Hypekoos mechri thanatou thanatou de staurou = obedient unto death, a death even a cross. It is translated "death on a cross" because that's what happens in the later Gospel according to Mark and so on thorugh the even later canonical gospels. Nowhere does Paul say that Jesus died as a result of crucifixion. The only crucifxion extant undisputed Paul ever mentions with enough detail to determine the cause of death is the Jewish scriptural one (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, at Galatians 3:13), where the cause of death is stoning or other blunt trauma, after which the corpse is crucified. (This penalty is still practiced in Saudi Arabia, except that the cause of death there is decapitation.) Would (some) Jews (not necessarily "officials") kill a man who suggested that he was God? John thinks so (8:58-59), and the death would have been by stoning; Luke apparently agrees (4:28-30), although he cites a known variation of stoning (throw the victim from a height - throw the body onto the stones, rather than vice versa) for the lesser blasphemy of proclaiming himself a prophet. Then again, Paul doesn't exclude a Roman crucifxion, and if Philo of Alexandria is reliable, Pilate might crucify any non-citizen for whatever reason suited him (rebel, reputed magician, being in the presence of an armed individual ... whatever). The only case for devils (instead of Jews or Romans) that I can see is if Jesus is a wholly celestial figure in the Doherty-Carrier style. While I thinks that's possible, I think some human Jesus is more likely. Plus, there is a "middle case," that (in Paul's mind) there is both a human Jesus and a celestial Jesus, just as (in some attested belief systems) whatever happens on earth reflects, or is reflected by, something that happens in the heavens. Plus, of course, what happens in Mark is a possibility: Romans and Jews combine to kill Jesus. Bottom line: Not D through Z, but rather on the slender information available, I don't see a strong basis for choosing among A, B, or A and B in Paul's thought. Given that Paul apparently believes in some form of Satan, any human act might be "and C", or if Doherty-Carrier happen to be right, just C. Since I'm not a Christian apologist, I can just admit I don't know. And I do. Well thank you for clearing that up, I stated what I truly believe based upon our conversations and threads we have both participated in. You have always been on point in those conversations and if you lack information you say that directly and honestly. As far as being an uncertainist I have never seen you act in that manner, and when confronted with something I don’t believe I will stand up and make a point of it like I did. I realize your post was mainly directed to Davros, but thank you my friend for including me in the discussion by quoting my comments I appreciate it very much! Be well my friend! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted February 14, 2022 #285 Share Posted February 14, 2022 Quote As far as being an uncertainist I have never seen you act in that manner Davros didn't mean anything bad by it. There's this blog called The Uncertaintist. I'm really, really good friends with the guy who writes there. That's all Davros meant. 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #286 Share Posted February 14, 2022 13 minutes ago, eight bits said: Davros didn't mean anything bad by it. There's this blog called The Uncertaintist. I'm really, really good friends with the guy who writes there. That's all Davros meant. I will take your word for that because you obviously know him better than me! At this point I have only known of him very recently so there was no way for me to know what his intentions were. However, when someone makes a comment in that manner about someone I am familiar with and that I also respect it is my nature to push back and let my thoughts be known! While some people may not view things that way and allow it to pass that’s not an honorable thing to do in my opinion. I am ruled by my military life and I doubt that will ever change, I am just hard wired that way! Be well! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted February 14, 2022 #287 Share Posted February 14, 2022 7 hours ago, Manwon Lender said: I had no idea about that, until now it’s an interesting subject thought I wonder how it applies today and if the following is a result of it! Before the missionaries came spreading the "word" and trying to "save" souls, Snakes in homes like the following was very common... Quote [00.01:25] ...and not only just snakes or reptiles now that I think about it. Back in my early teens, I have seen all sorts of creatures that were housed in homes but no one would call them "pets" Not to mention it is actually against the law to keep these animals as pets. I remember a pal of mine who had a monitor lizard living in his backyard, after a few years it grew really big and the wildlife service authorities showed up to investigate, the family denied it was a pet, the neighbours testified that it was not a pet, it was just a lizard that lived in their backyard, no one had any complaints, the lizard didn't cause any trouble. In fact it was a better rat catcher than cats. So, after a few hours, the authorities left and filed a report saying that they showed up. They still visits on occasions, though we don't know if they were visiting the lizard or my pal. Last I saw it, it was well over seven feet, snout to tip of tail. Big boy ... After about six years it just disappeared, gone... Best guess was it decided to go back into the wild. Actually, these days there are still many people in the deep rural areas that still have these natural relationship with wild animals and the last thing they'll say is that they're pets. If anything, it is just one of those things that are hard to explain, the animals just showed up and stayed. They're not caged up or tied up. ~ 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 14, 2022 #288 Share Posted February 14, 2022 3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said: I have been honest with you across the board, and I would not do otherwise if I had the knowledge to do so I would have shared my thoughts on the subject! Well you were pretty honest about when you said along the lines of not caring to learn about Christianity. As for me not answering your question (so you believe), just chalk it up to me being a civilian. 3 hours ago, eight bits said: No, seriously. Davros and I are twins, separated at birth. He knows me better than I know myself Before I fulfill his prophecy, though, I have a question (before I ever was an uncertaintist, I was and am Irish, we who answer questions with questions). @Davros of Skaro: Given that A-C include Romans and Jews, does it matter to your inquiry that Paul did not write "obendient even unto death on a cross"? As you note, that line breaks the meter of the passage (although that happens in musical compositions for effect), and has a meter of its own. It is very difficult to translate (although that happens in poetry, too). Hypekoos mechri thanatou thanatou de staurou = obedient unto death, a death even a cross. I worded in my descriptor that to note scholars vary on it. But importantly I specifically was refering to "— even death on a cross" only. The "obedient to the point of death" is not what I was refering to. So yes it could be original to the hymnal. Phili. 2:6-8 NRSV "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." 3 hours ago, eight bits said: It is translated "death on a cross" because that's what happens in the later Gospel according to Mark and so on thorugh the even later canonical gospels. Nowhere does Paul say that Jesus died as a result of crucifixion. The only crucifxion extant undisputed Paul ever mentions with enough detail to determine the cause of death is the Jewish scriptural one (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, at Galatians 3:13), where the cause of death is stoning or other blunt trauma, after which the corpse is crucified. (This penalty is still practiced in Saudi Arabia, except that the cause of death there is decapitation.) So the Savior's flesh is struck down dead, then hung on a tree, or a pole (fashioned piece of wood). That does not fit the Gospel narrative of Jesus being alive when hung up (is that one of the things 2 Pet. 3:15-16 tries to dispute?). You do agree that when Paul says "cross" (staros) it's ambiguous as to wether it's a living tree, or an upright fashioned length of wood? Joshua 10:24-27 "24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/1 Cor. 15:24-28, Rom. 16:20, Heb. 1:13, 2:5-9, 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" 3 hours ago, eight bits said: Would (some) Jews (not necessarily "officials") kill a man who suggested that he was God? John thinks so (8:58-59), and the death would have been by stoning; Luke apparently agrees (4:28-30), although he cites a known variation of stoning (throw the victim from a height - throw the body onto the stones, rather than vice versa) for the lesser blasphemy of proclaiming himself a prophet. Then again, Paul doesn't exclude a Roman crucifxion, and if Philo of Alexandria is reliable, Pilate might crucify any non-citizen for whatever reason suited him (rebel, reputed magician, being in the presence of an armed individual ... whatever). I explained in the context of Paul that they were made known with no doubt of God's plan. That is God 's plan of giving his Firstborn Son who emptied his powers, took on human flesh, and is to be killed then exalted so the magic of sin removal gives humans a chance at immortality. Ancient Judea shakes, and rumbles. Shafts of light bolt out of the Heavens. Then a lound voice which they can hear, and understand in their mind booms "Hey Romans, and Jews. Here's my plan". Then they get downloaded in their minds "Savior 2.0" which gives them no question on what God's plan is. Then God asks "Will you kill, or not kill? It will be like a very drunken weekend for him when it's over anyway.". Romans: Heck no. We don't want immortality despite our depictions of winged deities all over the place. Jews: OY VAY NO! Don't you know Jews are bad, and are against God. We do this Passover stuff because we're OCD. This is another glaring example of 2 Pet. 3:15-16. 3 hours ago, eight bits said: The only case for devils (instead of Jews or Romans) that I can see is if Jesus is a wholly celestial figure in the Doherty-Carrier style. While I thinks that's possible, I think some human Jesus is more likely. Plus, there is a "middle case," that (in Paul's mind) there is both a human Jesus and a celestial Jesus, just as (in some attested belief systems) whatever happens on earth reflects, or is reflected by, something that happens in the heavens. Plus, of course, what happens in Mark is a possibility: Romans and Jews combine to kill Jesus. Bottom line: Not D through Z, but rather on the slender information available, I don't see a strong basis for choosing among A, B, or A and B in Paul's thought. Given that Paul apparently believes in some form of Satan, any human act might be "and C", or if Doherty-Carrier happen to be right, just C. Since I'm not a Christian apologist, I can just admit I don't know. And I do admit that. Paul's Jesus is a preexisting celestial being that takes on flesh, killed, and exalted. Also theologically Paul's Anointed Savior is very close to Philo's celestial Divine Word who also has magic blood. The difference is simple as Philo's Firstborn Son Archangel did not have a parable written about it set on Earth that eventually led to a doctrinal war of more Gospels that pushes a flesh & blood resurrection which is not Pauline. Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Spiritual kinship & an angel of God (Rom. 8:29, Gal. 4:5-7, :14, Heb. 1:4) Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES "XI ...In reference to which I admire those who say, “We are all one man’s sons, we are men of Peace,” (Gen. 42:11) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?" "XXVIII ...And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s Sons.” (Gen. 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word...." Note: Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." This could be a cultic title (like Peter/Cephas which means "Rock" could have been, or an idiom) rather than being a biological relation? Paul constantly refers to those "in Christ" as brothers/sisters in a spiritual family. Good shepherd (Heb. 13:20) Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES "XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God." "XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..." Purification, forgiveness of sins & glorification (1 Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6) Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II "XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..." Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I "XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..." Note: Is Philo saying (“that man who has stood the test”) that the Divine Word was tested (Heb. 2:18)? If so it obviously passed the test. Sits beside God (Heb. 8:1) Philo: ABOUT NOT MOVING LANDMARKS "XXXVIII... I say, should such men triumph in and insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice, the ruler (Note: justice/ruler) of human life, who sits by the side of the great Ruler of the universe, who surveys all things with sleepless and most piercing eyes, and sees what is in recesses as clearly as if it was in the pure sunlight?" The Word is a covenant (1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:4-6) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book II "XXXIII ...God, says that he is about to erect firmly his covenant full of grace (and that means his law and his word) in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation, which shall be an image in the likeness of God, when he says to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with Thee.” (Gen. 9:11) And besides this, he also indicates two other things, one that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God (Note: justice/covenant), the other that other beings bestow gifts which are different from the persons who receive them;... XXXVI Since then all steadiness, and stability, and the abiding for ever in the same place unchangeably and immovably, is first of all seen in the living God, and next in the word of the living God, which he has called his covenant;..." The Word's sacrificial blood (Heb. 12:24) Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." 2 hours ago, eight bits said: Davros didn't mean anything bad by it. There's this blog called The Uncertaintist. I'm really, really good friends with the guy who writes there. That's all Davros meant. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted February 14, 2022 #289 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said: So the Savior's flesh is struck down dead, then hung on a tree, or a pole (fashioned piece of wood). That does not fit the Gospel narrative of Jesus being alive when hung up (is that one of the things 2 Pet. 3:15-16 tries to dispute?). You do agree that when Paul says "cross" (staros) it's ambiguous as to wether it's a living tree, or an upright fashioned length of wood? I agree that it's different from the gospel Passion narrative, but it isn't inconsistent with what Paul wrote (or quoted). And yes, the word stauros itself is ambiguous, just as you say. It is interesting, or maybe ironic, that in Acts 14:19-20, Paul is depicted as being stoned by a crowd led by Jews after being mistaken for a god, despite his protestations to the contrary. He revived later, after the crowd left him for dead. (Not to be confused, of course, with Paul having died and being resurrected.) That goes to your A, B, C which started this. At least in Luke's opinion, Jews could and some Jews would kill a Jewish perceived blasphemer without any official legal permission from civil authorities. It's also interesting that this crowd would presumably comprise both Jews and Gentiles, working together to kill the offender. Paul briefly confirms that he was stoned once (no details about who, where or why, 2 Corinthians 11:25). Oh- Luke doesn't say, but if you stone somebody in the usual manner, then you have to arrange for them to stand still, or nearly so. I don't know... how about tying some part of their body to a stake or to a tree? I mean, who wants to be holding the victim when the rocks start flying? I don't know that the right answer was your option B, that some Jews killed Jesus (or at least that's what Paul's understanding was). All I'm saying is that it is a lively possibility given the slender evidence on point, and given that the gospel Passion isn't a bet settler. Edited February 14, 2022 by eight bits 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #290 Share Posted February 14, 2022 7 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said: Well you were pretty honest about when you said along the lines of not caring to learn about Christianity. As for me not answering your question (so you believe), just chalk it up to me being a civilian. I worded in my descriptor that to note scholars vary on it. But importantly I specifically was refering to "— even death on a cross" only. The "obedient to the point of death" is not what I was refering to. So yes it could be original to the hymnal. Phili. 2:6-8 NRSV "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." So the Savior's flesh is struck down dead, then hung on a tree, or a pole (fashioned piece of wood). That does not fit the Gospel narrative of Jesus being alive when hung up (is that one of the things 2 Pet. 3:15-16 tries to dispute?). You do agree that when Paul says "cross" (staros) it's ambiguous as to wether it's a living tree, or an upright fashioned length of wood? Joshua 10:24-27 "24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/1 Cor. 15:24-28, Rom. 16:20, Heb. 1:13, 2:5-9, 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" I explained in the context of Paul that they were made known with no doubt of God's plan. That is God 's plan of giving his Firstborn Son who emptied his powers, took on human flesh, and is to be killed then exalted so the magic of sin removal gives humans a chance at immortality. Ancient Judea shakes, and rumbles. Shafts of light bolt out of the Heavens. Then a lound voice which they can hear, and understand in their mind booms "Hey Romans, and Jews. Here's my plan". Then they get downloaded in their minds "Savior 2.0" which gives them no question on what God's plan is. Then God asks "Will you kill, or not kill? It will be like a very drunken weekend for him when it's over anyway.". Romans: Heck no. We don't want immortality despite our depictions of winged deities all over the place. Jews: OY VAY NO! Don't you know Jews are bad, and are against God. We do this Passover stuff because we're OCD. This is another glaring example of 2 Pet. 3:15-16. Paul's Jesus is a preexisting celestial being that takes on flesh, killed, and exalted. Also theologically Paul's Anointed Savior is very close to Philo's celestial Divine Word who also has magic blood. The difference is simple as Philo's Firstborn Son Archangel did not have a parable written about it set on Earth that eventually led to a doctrinal war of more Gospels that pushes a flesh & blood resurrection which is not Pauline. Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Spiritual kinship & an angel of God (Rom. 8:29, Gal. 4:5-7, :14, Heb. 1:4) Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES "XI ...In reference to which I admire those who say, “We are all one man’s sons, we are men of Peace,” (Gen. 42:11) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?" "XXVIII ...And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s Sons.” (Gen. 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word...." Note: Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." This could be a cultic title (like Peter/Cephas which means "Rock" could have been, or an idiom) rather than being a biological relation? Paul constantly refers to those "in Christ" as brothers/sisters in a spiritual family. Good shepherd (Heb. 13:20) Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES "XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God." "XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..." Purification, forgiveness of sins & glorification (1 Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6) Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II "XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..." Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I "XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..." Note: Is Philo saying (“that man who has stood the test”) that the Divine Word was tested (Heb. 2:18)? If so it obviously passed the test. Sits beside God (Heb. 8:1) Philo: ABOUT NOT MOVING LANDMARKS "XXXVIII... I say, should such men triumph in and insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice, the ruler (Note: justice/ruler) of human life, who sits by the side of the great Ruler of the universe, who surveys all things with sleepless and most piercing eyes, and sees what is in recesses as clearly as if it was in the pure sunlight?" The Word is a covenant (1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:4-6) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book II "XXXIII ...God, says that he is about to erect firmly his covenant full of grace (and that means his law and his word) in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation, which shall be an image in the likeness of God, when he says to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with Thee.” (Gen. 9:11) And besides this, he also indicates two other things, one that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God (Note: justice/covenant), the other that other beings bestow gifts which are different from the persons who receive them;... XXXVI Since then all steadiness, and stability, and the abiding for ever in the same place unchangeably and immovably, is first of all seen in the living God, and next in the word of the living God, which he has called his covenant;..." The Word's sacrificial blood (Heb. 12:24) Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Yes I will certainly do that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #291 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, SHaYap said: Before the missionaries came spreading the "word" and trying to "save" souls, Snakes in homes like the following was very common... ...and not only just snakes or reptiles now that I think about it. Back in my early teens, I have seen all sorts of creatures that were housed in homes but no one would call them "pets" Not to mention it is actually against the law to keep these animals as pets. I remember a pal of mine who had a monitor lizard living in his backyard, after a few years it grew really big and the wildlife service authorities showed up to investigate, the family denied it was a pet, the neighbours testified that it was not a pet, it was just a lizard that lived in their backyard, no one had any complaints, the lizard didn't cause any trouble. In fact it was a better rat catcher than cats. So, after a few hours, the authorities left and filed a report saying that they showed up. They still visits on occasions, though we don't know if they were visiting the lizard or my pal. Last I saw it, it was well over seven feet, snout to tip of tail. Big boy ... After about six years it just disappeared, gone... Best guess was it decided to go back into the wild. Actually, these days there are still many people in the deep rural areas that still have these natural relationship with wild animals and the last thing they'll say is that they're pets. If anything, it is just one of those things that are hard to explain, the animals just showed up and stayed. They're not caged up or tied up. ~ Thats pretty cool, thanks for sharing! Edited February 14, 2022 by Manwon Lender 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted February 14, 2022 #292 Share Posted February 14, 2022 18 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said: Just nipping it in the bud before someone tried to, even as a form of syncretism. I linked to what Nirvana is, and showed a myth that greatly predates both beliefs. Keep in mind I'm a mythicist as far as Jesus is concerned. You said previously that you know little about Christianity, and do not care much about learning about it. But I have two simple multiple choice questions (concerning Xtianity) you might find interesting. Let me know if you're interested because I cannot get a straight contextual answer from Christians. I have even heard that Jesus character is an archetype of suffering “the crucifixion” symbolizes that humans suffer not unlike the Buddhist teaching. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #293 Share Posted February 14, 2022 51 minutes ago, Sherapy said: I have even heard that Jesus character is an archetype of suffering “the crucifixion” symbolizes that humans suffer not unlike the Buddhist teaching. Sheri, that’s an interesting thought, I never looked at it from that perspective. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted February 14, 2022 #294 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said: Sheri, that’s an interesting thought, I never looked at it from that perspective. I thought the same, humans have known suffering and needed ways to cope probably more awful back then. It makes sense that humanity has looked for and created ways to cope and codified them to help. Hoping for an after life to live again in a paradise might make this life journey easier if your Christian. Edited February 14, 2022 by Sherapy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted February 14, 2022 Author #295 Share Posted February 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, Sherapy said: I thought the same, humans have known suffering and needed ways to cope probably more awful back then. It makes sense that humanity has looked for and created ways to cope and codified them to help. Hoping for an after life to live again in a paradise might make this life journey easier if your Christian. I think the blissful after life is the key to ever religion or philosophy. My biggest problem with organized religions is not the belief system in many ways all are similar! The thing that turns me off is faith in religious leaders that interpret the word, and share it. This is a double edged sword that all depends upon the individual that interprets the scripture! Some are truly faithful to the word and others interpret the word to fit their agenda! This can make things complicated for a congregation, if the members don’t study the scriptures themselves and this is one of the reasons I walked away from my religious upbringing! Be well Shari! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted February 15, 2022 #296 Share Posted February 15, 2022 The problem with organized religion is that it's too goddam full of religious people, all humming the same hymn in their own peculiar off-key way. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted February 15, 2022 #297 Share Posted February 15, 2022 18 hours ago, Manwon Lender said: I think the blissful after life is the key to ever religion or philosophy. My biggest problem with organized religions is not the belief system in many ways all are similar! The thing that turns me off is faith in religious leaders that interpret the word, and share it. This is a double edged sword that all depends upon the individual that interprets the scripture! Some are truly faithful to the word and others interpret the word to fit their agenda! This can make things complicated for a congregation, if the members don’t study the scriptures themselves and this is one of the reasons I walked away from my religious upbringing! Be well Shari! Yup, I think your right. That’s probably the biggest similarity! .. Christianity has Heaven, Buddhism has Nirvana, and Hinduism has a merger of oneself with Brahma…the Supreme BEING ..(which Everything is already part of). In each case…it’s a concept of Eternal Bliss. (With some built in exceptions of course for letting oneself succumb to human behavior ) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 17, 2022 #298 Share Posted February 17, 2022 On 2/14/2022 at 11:12 AM, eight bits said: I agree that it's different from the gospel Passion narrative, but it isn't inconsistent with what Paul wrote (or quoted). Please cite the bolded. On 2/14/2022 at 11:12 AM, eight bits said: It is interesting, or maybe ironic, that in Acts 14:19-20, Paul is depicted as being stoned by a crowd led by Jews after being mistaken for a god, despite his protestations to the contrary. He revived later, after the crowd left him for dead. (Not to be confused, of course, with Paul having died and being resurrected.) That goes to your A, B, C which started this. At least in Luke's opinion, Jews could and some Jews would kill a Jewish perceived blasphemer without any official legal permission from civil authorities. It's also interesting that this crowd would presumably comprise both Jews and Gentiles, working together to kill the offender. Paul briefly confirms that he was stoned once (no details about who, where or why, 2 Corinthians 11:25). Maybe Luke created a narrative out of whole cloth with 2 Cor. 11:25 "Once I received a stoning." as it's cornerstone (no pun intended)? After all Luke sure looks like fictional history to smooth out differing beliefs. On 2/14/2022 at 11:12 AM, eight bits said: Oh- Luke doesn't say, but if you stone somebody in the usual manner, then you have to arrange for them to stand still, or nearly so. I don't know... how about tying some part of their body to a stake or to a tree? I mean, who wants to be holding the victim when the rocks start flying? I have seen crowds stone people to death with no need to hold them. On 2/14/2022 at 11:12 AM, eight bits said: I don't know that the right answer was your option B, that some Jews killed Jesus (or at least that's what Paul's understanding was). All I'm saying is that it is a lively possibility given the slender evidence on point, and given that the gospel Passion isn't a bet settler. Please cite the bolded to back that up. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 17, 2022 #299 Share Posted February 17, 2022 On 2/14/2022 at 3:41 PM, Manwon Lender said: Yes I will certainly do that. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 17, 2022 #300 Share Posted February 17, 2022 On 2/14/2022 at 5:37 PM, Sherapy said: I have even heard that Jesus character is an archetype of suffering “the crucifixion” symbolizes that humans suffer not unlike the Buddhist teaching. As you know suffering is no big revelation especially back in antiquity. Buddhism philosophies it away for a reward, while the OT commands it away "Thou shalt not covet your neighbors house" as being a sin for agonizing over what you don't have (which can grow to bigger badder things). It makes for a smoother society which is not hard to figure out, but for some it is hard to figure out because desire can wash out reasoning. I have little doubt that the earlist Christians believed Jesus took on flesh to suffer, and his exaltation gave others a path to have freedom from suffering. They thought disease, and mental illness was a metaphysical force against the flesh. A spiritual body awaits those that live by the example of Jesus for Christians. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now