And the truth shall set you free...

[skyangel]

well, i could be wrong there, but i think that basically amounts to personifying angels, who are better perceived as manifestations.

tag for later, gotta run right now. I think we are led into anthropomorphizing angels when we read these, and they are saying something else.

edit: also, you are now relying on the same Book that tells us Jesus was an actual historical person, so it is perceived that you rely on Scripture when It suits you, kind of.

To understand the morals and lessons, allegories, idioms, metaphors, etc, in mythical stories, you need to use the story itself to explain it. How else are you going to explain a story without mentioning the concepts taught in that story? Relying on principles and concepts taught in a story is far different to believing that the characters in the story are real...eg... You don't need to believe the three pigs or red riding hood and the wolf were real to understand the concepts and lessons taught in the stories.
The word angel ( malak ) simply means messenger or ambassador. It has been translated as messenger 98 times in the bible and those messengers ( malak) are referring to ordinary people not to some different form of life with superhuman powers and some kind of robotic tendencies without choices.

 

[Mungo]

To understand the morals and lessons, allegories, idioms, metaphors, etc, in mythical stories, you need to use the story itself to explain it. How else are you going to explain a story without mentioning the concepts taught in that story? Relying on principles and concepts taught in a story is far different to believing that the characters in the story are real...eg... You don't need to believe the three pigs or red riding hood and the wolf were real to understand the concepts and lessons taught in the stories.
The word angel ( malak ) simply means messenger or ambassador. It has been translated as messenger 98 times in the bible and those messengers ( malak) are referring to ordinary people not to some different form of life with superhuman powers and some kind of robotic tendencies without choices.

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. (Rev 12:7-8)

Were these angels just ordinary humans in heaven?

Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den." Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den." Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself. Then Habakkuk shouted, "Daniel, Daniel! Take the dinner which God has sent you." And Daniel said, "Thou hast remembered me, O God, and hast not forsaken those who love thee." So Daniel arose and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place. (Daniel 14:33-39)

No superhuman powers?

 

[bbyrd009]

They stick their heads in the sand and don't want to even consider that the invisible character they worship and idolise is as mythical as Zeus.

Thing is you have no conclusive evidence for this, and Jesus even said that He must be lifted up like a snake on a pole, and we can read that Nehushtan was "broken up" because it was being worshipped as an idol.

So the symbology is all in place to understand Christ as Spirit, yet we have most or at least many professed Christians who even teach that belief in "Jesus" is all one needs. So there is already a tension there that imo your assertion of "no physical Jesus" just ends up obscuring.

A counterfeit worship of Jesus is already there, and quite functional iow, so why alienate yourself asserting something that people will just misconstrue and dismiss you for?

 

[bbyrd009]

There is no perfectly correct calendar.

the point was that the Julian calendar was supposedly an attempt to memorialize Jesus' life not whether it was correct or not.

 

[Mungo]

That story book Jesus is a mythical character who merely personifies TRUTH and LIFE. Real people do not have supernatural powers to do physical miracles and heal others by simply telling them to be healed.

Are you saying that Jesus, as described in the gospels, never actually existed as a real person?

Just want to clarify.

 

[bbyrd009]

The word angel ( malak ) simply means messenger or ambassador. It has been translated as messenger 98 times in the bible and those messengers ( malak) are referring to ordinary people not to some different form of life with superhuman powers and some kind of robotic tendencies without choices.

well, that is your understanding, but it seems to me that angels would then have to be people, and i doubt that, as they are differentiated. We have the concept of something "taking on a life of its own" that i think is a good analogy for an angel, iow a "manifestation," or a "spirit," that is not ensouled, and we can even manifest things that have a certain spirit, and that outlive us, etc.

 

[Mungo]

the point was that the Julian calendar was supposedly an attempt to memorialize Jesus' life not whether it was correct or not.

Where did you get that from? The Julian Calendar was introduced by Julius Casear in 45BC.

 

[bbyrd009]

not to some different form of life with superhuman powers and some kind of robotic tendencies without choices.

imo this occurs because we tend to anthropomorphize say "Michael" for instance, maybe because he has a name? When Michael is likely just...well, what Scripture says, pure spirit. No soul. Embodied by an idea.

 

[bbyrd009]

Where did you get that from? The Julian Calendar was introduced by Julius Casear in 45BC.

i got that from being raised with the understanding that Jesus was born around the year zero on the Julian Calendar, which i have no idea if that is even true or not tbh, it's just what we are taught.

Of course i learned later that they miscalculated, etc, and for all i know there was some Roman Conspiracy to wrest control of Christianity via a calendar move, perhaps similar to the Canonization process that split the church or something, but nonetheless Julian Calendar year zero is now associated with Jesus, right?

 

[Mungo]

i got that from being raised with the understanding that Jesus was born around the year zero on the Julian Calendar, which i have no idea if that is even true or not tbh, it's just what we are taught.

Of course i learned later that they miscalculated, etc, and for all i know there was some Roman Conspiracy to wrest control of Christianity via a calendar move, perhaps similar to the Canonization process that split the church or something, but nonetheless Julian Calendar year zero is now associated with Jesus, right?

The date of Jesus' birth was retro-fitted to the Julian Calendar hundreds of years after the birth of Christ and it became common in Christian countries to calculate dates before and after his birth (BC & AD). But the Julian Calendar wasn't invented for the sake of Christ and Christianity.

 

[bbyrd009]

The date of Jesus' birth was retro-fitted to the Julian Calendar hundreds of years after the birth of Christ and it became common in Christian countries to calculate dates before and after his birth (BC & AD). But the Julian Calendar wasn't invented for the sake of Christ and Christianity.

i would not be surprised a bit, but at this remove it becomes just another inconsistency that no one can conclusively demonstrate i guess.

 

[skyangel]

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. (Rev 12:7-8)

Were these angels just ordinary humans in heaven?

When you understand that "heaven" refers to a state of heart/conscience and not to a location outside of Earth, you come to realise that any "war" in heaven is about an inner conflict within the human conscience, heart or mind. It is about the good and evil "spirits" or attitudes or thoughts within the person being in conflict. It is about the simple concept of good overcoming evil which is found in most myths even in secular ones. I am sure you must have come across the concept of an "angel" on one shoulder and a "devil" on the other whispering into the ears of a person? The principle or concept is exactly the same. It is about thoughts or temptations within the minds and hearts of ordinary people and about overcoming those inner temptations to do wrong.
It is not about literal dragons or literal supernatural beings fighting in some mysterious invisible location outside of Earth.
The word Michael means "Who is like God". It simply refers to the inner spirit within you "who is like God" and is the angel or good spirit which has the power to overcome the dragon or satan or the evil within the "heaven" or Kingdom of God ( referring to the human conscience, heart and mind) within you. Luke 17:21.

So yes, ultimately the story is simply about ordinary people and the attitudes and conflicts they have within them.

 

[skyangel]

Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den." Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den." Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself. Then Habakkuk shouted, "Daniel, Daniel! Take the dinner which God has sent you." And Daniel said, "Thou hast remembered me, O God, and hast not forsaken those who love thee." So Daniel arose and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place. (Daniel 14:33-39)

No superhuman powers?

Not when you understand the symbolism and no longer take the story literally but obviously you still read these stories literally.

 

[skyangel]

Thing is you have no conclusive evidence for this, and Jesus even said that He must be lifted up like a snake on a pole, and we can read that Nehushtan was "broken up" because it was being worshipped as an idol.

So the symbology is all in place to understand Christ as Spirit, yet we have most or at least many professed Christians who even teach that belief in "Jesus" is all one needs. So there is already a tension there that imo your assertion of "no physical Jesus" just ends up obscuring.

A counterfeit worship of Jesus is already there, and quite functional iow, so why alienate yourself asserting something that people will just misconstrue and dismiss you for?

"Nehushtan" or the "serpent on the pole" is still worshipped as an idol today and always will be as long as people believe in mythical gods. The name of the "serpent" has just changed to Jesus. Look at how many Christian religions have made a graven image of the man on the cross and even pray to that image.
Who or what is going to destroy the idol if not the LIGHT of TRUTH?

It is ironic that the serpent on the pole symbolises Jesus and professing Christians who continue to live in sin claim that all they need is to believe in that serpent on the pole to be saved from sin.
It is no different to believing the serpent in the tree who also told Eve that she would not surely die.(Gen 3:4) Jesus said the same thing as a serpent on a pole...You will never die. (John 11:26)
The blind cannot see that both these characters were telling the truth in a spiritual sense when referring to spiritual death to death even if both were lying in a physical sense when referring to physical death because all believers in the serpent or Jesus have always physically died and always will.

Whether people alienate themselves from others or not depends on whether people consider and accept what each other say or not. It is no different from the Jesus character alienating himself from many people. Did he do that on purpose or was the so called alienation due to the way they interpreted or misinterpret his words?
The important thing is not to worry about whether we are accepted or rejected by people or what they think of us. Speaking the Truth is what is necessary and the Truth always alienates itself from lies and liars simply because that is its nature.
There simply is no fellowship between Truth and lies or Light and darkness. Light alienates itself from darkness at all times too due to its nature.
Darkness will always misconstrue Light. (John 1:5)
When you understand and accept that fact, you also accept the fact that those who walk in darkness will always be alienated by those who walk in the Light simply because it is the nature of Light to destroy darkness.
Too many people spend too much time trying hard to be accepted and trying hard to not offend others instead of simply speaking Truth.
Light does not strive to be accepted by darkness, nor does it try hard to say or do things in a way that darkness can comprehend. It understands that darkness will never comprehend Light.

 

[skyangel]

the point was that the Julian calendar was supposedly an attempt to memorialize Jesus' life not whether it was correct or not.

You are free to believe any myths about any calendar that you choose to believe but if you are wise you will do your research on the history of all calendars and understand they are not about memorialising anything or anyone but they are all about trying to keep track of seasons and cycles, days and years of the Earth.

 

[skyangel]

Are you saying that Jesus, as described in the gospels, never actually existed as a real person?

Just want to clarify.

Yes that is what I am saying. He never existed as a real person any more than Zeus existed as a real person or Red Riding Hood and her grandma existed as real people. He is a mythical character who merely represents all men on Earth and he is an example of how people ought to live in the Light (inner goodness) and overcome darkness (inner evil) rather than living "in darkness" and waiting for "the Light" to physically arrive on Earth on some unknown day in future.
Some people also believe that the name Jesus (Iesous in Greek) comes from the Zeus Mythology

If you check out the 5.48 minute video, put it on mute if you find the music annoying. There is no speaking on it just words to read.
It is also known that the mythical god Apollo was also called Christ.
Apollo, God of Oracles | IE the Chrest? | Son of God
In Greek the name Iesous ( translated as Jesus in English) literally means "Hail Zeus"
Iesous in Greek

 

[skyangel]

well, that is your understanding, but it seems to me that angels would then have to be people, and i doubt that, as they are differentiated. We have the concept of something "taking on a life of its own" that i think is a good analogy for an angel, iow a "manifestation," or a "spirit," that is not ensouled, and we can even manifest things that have a certain spirit, and that outlive us, etc.

It all depends on the context of the story you find these characters in. Sometimes the word "malak" refers to ordinary people as messengers and other times the word "malak" refers to attitudes or thoughts within ordinary people. Either way, "the messenger" is not something that is "out of this world" and has some supernatural powers. The "messenger" ( malak, angel) is always something very ordinary.
Heb 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Are strangers ordinary people or not?
How about that "angel" which sits on a persons shoulders and whispers in their ears? Is that not simply referring to ordinary human thought?
http://www.publicationcoach.com/wp-...08/285-homer1.jpg.pagespeed.ce.uB9BcjCXNp.jpg

 

[skyangel]

imo this occurs because we tend to anthropomorphize say "Michael" for instance, maybe because he has a name? When Michael is likely just...well, what Scripture says, pure spirit. No soul. Embodied by an idea.

Yes it seems that once people embody an idea or concept and give it a name in a story, it tends to make readers, especially English speaking readers perceive and think of a person in a story instead of the concept or idea behind the character.
We need to understand that in Hebrew all names have a meaning and are not just random meaningless labels like they are in English.
The word Michael means "Who is like God". The meaning has a lot of significance when you understand that anyone "who is like God' in the sense of being good and truthful can be a messenger (angel, malak) of goodness and truth. It makes no difference what other names they go by, if it is someone "who is like God" in Hebrew they would call that person "Michael" not referring to any fleshly physical body of an individual but referring to the nature or "spirit" of anyone "who is like God".
The problem is that English speaking people attempt to interpret a Jewish story without understanding the Jewish way of thinking. English readers read a name and think of an individual person. Jews read a name and think of the nature or spirit which is conveyed by the meaning of the word.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes it seems that once people embody an idea or concept and give it a name in a story, it tends to make readers, especially English speaking readers perceive and think of a person in a story instead of the concept or idea behind the character.
We need to understand that in Hebrew all names have a meaning and are not just random meaningless labels like they are in English.
The word Michael means "Who is like God". The meaning has a lot of significance when you understand that anyone "who is like God' in the sense of being good and truthful can be a messenger (angel, malak) of goodness and truth. It makes no difference what other names they go by, if it is someone "who is like God" in Hebrew they would call that person "Michael" not referring to any fleshly physical body of an individual but referring to the nature or "spirit" of anyone "who is like God".
The problem is that English speaking people attempt to interpret a Jewish story without understanding the Jewish way of thinking. English readers read a name and think of an individual person. Jews read a name and think of the nature or spirit which is conveyed by the meaning of the word.

i'm curious then at what point you believe Scripture became fiction, if you got that far?

 

[mjrhealth]

Is that not simply referring to ordinary human thought?

No, really where do you think men come up with these ingenious creations. Was it God that got upset with teh angels who where teaching men things we shoudnt know?? Still happening to day. Teh devil deals in death and destruction and all new technonlogy paths are leading us right there.