The Bible

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's go back to the topic. The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. What do you think that might mean?

Sacrifice? How can an all powerful being sacrifice anything, other than maybe its pride?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How about the bit about a talking snake? That should be a clue that you are reading fiction.

Not actually a talking snake. Or in the case of Balaam, talking donkey. Now in the case of the snake, or serpent, its obviously the spirit being later known as Satan, using the serpent as a puppet.

Satan... a guy that isn't going to be mentioned in how many pages, is responsible for an act that isn't attributed to him in any form or fashion in the story of The Fall?

 

[Duke Leto]

Fascinating. The intensity of dysfunction is remarkable! What power you grant me over you I do not care to accept the responsibility of. To what end your hatred and intolerance would be satiated is terribly alarming. If I, like Maud'dib buried deep beneath the desert sand, dare to follow it's possible paths to their various conclusions I would likely see very little good coming of it and a great deal of harm. Why don't you set that God free in your mind. Just let it go and trouble you no more.

Perhaps we could talk about The Dhammapada instead?

No idea what that nonsense was intended to communicate.

This isn't complicated. You aren't allowed to use the board for preaching/proselytizing. It's obvious you have no intention of respecting that rule. I'd go find a place where you're likely to meet more of a favorable response, like maybe 4chan's politics sub-board.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fascinating. The intensity of dysfunction is remarkable! What power you grant me over you I do not care to accept the responsibility of. To what end your hatred and intolerance would be satiated is terribly alarming. If I, like Maud'dib buried deep beneath the desert sand, dare to follow it's possible paths to their various conclusions I would likely see very little good coming of it and a great deal of harm. Why don't you set that God free in your mind. Just let it go and trouble you no more.

Perhaps we could talk about The Dhammapada instead?

No idea what that nonsense was intended to communicate.

This isn't complicated. You aren't allowed to use the board for preaching/proselytizing. It's obvious you have no intention of respecting that rule. I'd go find a place where you're likely to meet more of a favorable response, like maybe 4chan's politics sub-board.

Chill man. DLH is just wandering the path that users like them take here. They think it'll be easy, but then realize many posters here know the book better than he does. And then they'll leave.

 

[Duke Leto]

Point.

 

[none]

pfft, don't get ahead of yourself.. I am still waiting for you to admit God is a metaphor for gravity in Genesis 1:1 and in Genesis 1:2-5 morning and evening are a metaphor for dog years

Let's go back to the topic. The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. What do you think that might mean?

It is a metaphor for "don't have any morals and relinquish your cognition."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Point.

Just think of it as an opportunity for smacking lobbed softballs over the fence to help any of those in the Peanut Gallery that are still pondering their own understanding of their faith or lack there of.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the Jungian interpretation. Christs sacrifice is a symbol of individuation, which often entails struggle and suffering.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like the Jungian interpretation. Christs sacrifice is a symbol of individuation, which often entails struggle and suffering.

Or we could just look at the actual historical reality that he didn't come back, hence his being the messiah and godlike kept stepping earlier and earlier in his (or before his in the final gospel) life.

His death wasn't a problem immediately because he was coming back. Once that didn't happen, they needed to alter the script. And they did. And somehow that doesn't bother Christians.

 

[DLH]

pfft, don't get ahead of yourself.. I am still waiting for you to admit God is a metaphor for gravity in Genesis 1:1 and in Genesis 1:2-5 morning and evening are a metaphor for dog years

That isn't going to happen.

 

[DLH]

Or we could just look at the actual historical reality that he didn't come back, hence his being the messiah and godlike kept stepping earlier and earlier in his (or before his in the final gospel) life.

His death wasn't a problem immediately because he was coming back. Once that didn't happen, they needed to alter the script. And they did. And somehow that doesn't bother Christians.

Actually he did come back.

As for his so called second return, that is nothing more than religious nonsense. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.

Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50 / Luke 13:1 / John 7:6; 11:28 / Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19 / 1 Corinthians 5:3 / 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 11:9; 13:2, 10 / Galatians 4:18, 20 / Colossians 1:6 / Hebrews 12:11; 13:5 / 2 Peter 1:9, 12 / Revelation 17:8.

The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ. Bible Topics | End Of The World

 

[none]

pfft, don't get ahead of yourself.. I am still waiting for you to admit God is a metaphor for gravity in Genesis 1:1 and in Genesis 1:2-5 morning and evening are a metaphor for dog years

That isn't going to happen.

Nothing gets past the gullible, next you'll be showing your magic decoder ring that you use to decode the Bible
still waiting for you to produce your metaphorical God.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or we could just look at the actual historical reality that he didn't come back, hence his being the messiah and godlike kept stepping earlier and earlier in his (or before his in the final gospel) life.

His death wasn't a problem immediately because he was coming back. Once that didn't happen, they needed to alter the script. And they did. And somehow that doesn't bother Christians.

Actually he did come back.

A limited time engagement, no notice. There was talk of a huge return back to the stage, but that fell through. You knew that was what I was referring to.

As for his so called second return, that is nothing more than religious nonsense.

Also known as one of the most important parts of Christian faith. Look, the truth is contained in how Jesus was the Messiah being stepped back in each following Gospel. They were expecting a return. When it didn't happen, they just made him the Messiah and God pre-birth to prove his godliness.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.

Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50 / Luke 13:1 / John 7:6; 11:28 / Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19 / 1 Corinthians 5:3 / 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 11:9; 13:2, 10 / Galatians 4:18, 20 / Colossians 1:6 / Hebrews 12:11; 13:5 / 2 Peter 1:9, 12 / Revelation 17:8.

The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ. Bible Topics | End Of The World

If you want to argue that, you'll need to start a different thread.

 

[DLH]

Let's go back to the topic. The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. What do you think that might mean?

Sacrifice? How can an all powerful being sacrifice anything, other than maybe its pride?

Sorry, Mr. Higgins, I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. The pagan doctrine of the Trinity, adopted by the apostate Christian church confuses the matter a great deal. First of all, what is meant by all powerful God? Only Jehovah was called God Almighty (Hebrew El Shaddai Genesis 17:1) and Jesus, however, was called a mighty god prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew El Gibbohr). Jesus sacrificed his blood (soul, life) because only he could have. Since Jehovah is a God of Justice, the life, blood or soul of one taken must be replaced. Eye for eye, soul for soul. Adam was created perfect without sin, so when he brought about death to all mankind only the blood of a perfect sinless man could be sacrificed for justice.

The angel later known as Satan (meaning resister / adversary) challenged Jehovah's sovereignty, you see? In a sense, the authority of his name. His sense of justice. He, the Devil (Greek diabolos, meaning slanderer / acuser).

Since the angels in their myriads, who had been around for, most likely a great period of time before man was created, had witnessed this challenge, so it is more important than mankind's salvation.

About the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 says: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sacrifice? How can an all powerful being sacrifice anything, other than maybe its pride?

Sorry, Mr. Higgins, I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. The pagan doctrine of the Trinity, adopted by the apostate Christian church confuses the matter a great deal. First of all, what is meant by all powerful God? Only Jehovah was called God Almighty (Hebrew El Shaddai Genesis 17:1) and Jesus, however, was called a mighty god prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew El Gibbohr). Jesus sacrificed his blood (soul, life) because only he could have. Since Jehovah is a God of Justice, the life, blood or soul of one taken must be replaced. Eye for eye, soul for soul. Adam was created perfect without sin, so when he brought about death to all mankind only the blood of a perfect sinless man could be sacrificed for justice.

Even if that's the case, what exactly was the "sacrifice" that Jesus made? A few days of minor discomfort that he could have stepped away from at any time in exchange for an eternity ruling Heaven? I sacrifice more when I say no to a birthday cake at the office because I don't want to ruin my dinner - at least I'm put out to an insignificant degree with that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sorry, Mr. Higgins, I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. The pagan doctrine of the Trinity, adopted by the apostate Christian church confuses the matter a great deal. First of all, what is meant by all powerful God? Only Jehovah was called God Almighty (Hebrew El Shaddai Genesis 17:1) and Jesus, however, was called a mighty god prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew El Gibbohr). Jesus sacrificed his blood (soul, life) because only he could have. Since Jehovah is a God of Justice, the life, blood or soul of one taken must be replaced. Eye for eye, soul for soul.

Could you please elaborate on that whole eye for an eye thing and how that applies to the discussion.

Adam was created perfect without sin...

Man may have been created without sin, but he wasn't perfect.

...so when he brought about death to all mankind only the blood of a perfect sinless man could be sacrificed for justice.

Man in the Garden did no such thing regarding bringing about death. The only long-term thing Man and Woman did was to grant people knowledge of all things (well, most things).

The angel later known as Satan (meaning resister / adversary) challenged Jehovah's sovereignty, you see?

Not in the Tanakh I don't.

In a sense, the authority of his name. His sense of justice. He, the Devil (Greek diabolos, meaning slanderer / acuser).

Since the angels in their myriads, who had been around for, most likely a great period of time before man was created, had witnessed this challenge, so it is more important than mankind's salvation.

You are beginning to swerve into Fan-Fic here.

About the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 says: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

That is yet one of a bunch of interpretations that people put forth for The Fall.

But if want to actually know what it really meant, we should really stick to the source material. ~'Man has become like us, knowing of good and evil. He must not eat of the tree of life and live forever."

This gives us a true understanding of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Man is booted from the Garden because Man has become like him, prideful? No. Smart, knowing of things, knowing of all things from good to evil, not morality, but knowledge in general. Just as a side note, it is of interest that the Serpent tells the truth, God has not. They did not die the moment they ate the fruit. They also did learn of all things good and evil. If anything, it appears God boots them from the Garden because he doesn't want competition.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the Jungian interpretation. Christs sacrifice is a symbol of individuation, which often entails struggle and suffering.

Or we could just look at the actual historical reality that he didn't come back, hence his being the messiah and godlike kept stepping earlier and earlier in his (or before his in the final gospel) life.

His death wasn't a problem immediately because he was coming back. Once that didn't happen, they needed to alter the script. And they did. And somehow that doesn't bother Christians.

I don't think history has anything to do with spirituality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or we could just look at the actual historical reality that he didn't come back, hence his being the messiah and godlike kept stepping earlier and earlier in his (or before his in the final gospel) life.

His death wasn't a problem immediately because he was coming back. Once that didn't happen, they needed to alter the script. And they did. And somehow that doesn't bother Christians.

I don't think history has anything to do with spirituality.

I meant historically as per the timeline of the gospels and what is claimed in them.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't think history has anything to do with spirituality.

I meant historically as per the timeline of the gospels and what is claimed in them.

I know. I consider all that a waste of time. Meaning is important. Wrangling over supposed miraculous occurrences isn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I meant historically as per the timeline of the gospels and what is claimed in them.

I know. I consider all that a waste of time. Meaning is important. Wrangling over supposed miraculous occurrences isn't.

My response was in comment to DLH's attempt to make the second coming seem like a non-event and not anticipated by his contemporaries.