When is a christian NOT a Christian?

[Philip James]

In the sacraments of Christ the Church already receives the guarantee of her inheritance and even now shares in everlasting life, while "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus."

Taken from here: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Peace be with you!

 

[Grailhunter]

@Giuliano
I would say he could be said to be "a god" when he was born to Mary.
I agree.

The star was physical but not a celestial body. Magi followed it and it came to rest over Christ's home in Nazareth. (Many believe it appeared over the nativity.) Traditionally it is said that the Magi were from the east...well if they were from the east and saw the star in the east they would have traveled the wrong way.

The Trinity thing I would like to discuss with you sometime.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

This is an interesting point because some believe that there were those in the Old Testament that went to heaven. Many miss the point that heaven and hell as a possible destination for souls does not occur until the New Testament.

Part of Jesus was still in Heaven when he said that, and he knew it.

Another interesting point, I would love for you to elaborate on that.

This is why Jacob had to supplant Esau. I believe the angel Jacob wrestled with was the somewhat fallen Guardian Angel of Esau;

Fascinating, So how you did you come to this finding? I am interested not critical. You have a method that is for sure.

 

[Giuliano]

The star was physical but not a celestial body. Magi followed it and it came to rest over Christ's home in Nazareth. (Many believe it appeared over the nativity.) Traditionally it is said that the Magi were from the east...well if they were from the east and saw the star in the east they would have traveled the wrong way. [/quote]When considering that question, I was compelled to ask why Herod couldn't see it and follow it if it was a physical phenomenon; and I ask you the same question. The Gospel according to Matthew is distinctly different from the others to me in that it contains sections which once convinced me the entire book was a forgery of sorts until I realized the passages in question were like what the Jews call midrashim. People from the period in which it was written would have a better idea of which sections to take literally in historical and physical details, and which required a spiritual application. There is no history of Herod slaughtering infants, no history of a census. Those details are highly significant spiritually -- but I don't see them as historical details.

The passage says they came from the east. That would be right too; and I see them as descendants of the sons of Abraham which got sent to the east. How should we read Mt 2:9 which says, "and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them." Does that mean the star was to the east of them, or does it mean they had been in the east when they first saw it? I think the answer is clear. Compare too to how Abraham moved from the east to the west, and how he built his altar so he faced west. The Jewish Temple was also built so the people faced west.

The passage also says Herod sent them to Bethlehem. "And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."

What the historical facts are seem uncertain to me. What they were also seems to have been unclear to the author of this passage from Matthew.
We are told that an angel told Joseph to flee (whether in Bethlehem or Nazareth) to escape the wrath of Herod; later when Herod dies, the angel appears and tells Joseph it's safe to return home. Joseph does not go to Bethehem but then establishes residence in Nazareth.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

If an angel saved your life by warning you, would you be frightened to return if an angel told you it was safe to return? It's an odd passage. Also odd is that no prophecy I know of says, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This looks to me as if someone was trying to explain why Jesus came from Nazareth but somehow got born in Bethelem. I think Luke's explanation of it is more historically accurate. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth to begin with. The journey to Bethlehem probably coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles.

Spirits are described as stars in several passages in the Bible. That is why I lean to my belief.

The Trinity thing I would like to discuss with you sometime.

Another time perhaps.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

This is an interesting point because some believe that there were those in the Old Testament that went to heaven. Many miss the point that heaven and hell as a possible destination for souls does not occur until the New Testament.

This is another somewhat complicated subject. I think Nicodemus knew things most people in his day did not. Indeed I think he knew exactly what "born of the Spirit" meant and was testing Jesus to see if he did. Jesus did a little teasing back -- You're a master of Israel and don't know this?
Think of what Jesus told Nicodemus. What he told him convinced Nicodemus he was who Nicodemus hoped he was. When Paul speaks of things like this, he calls them "mysteries."

I think much confusion arose within Christianity when Christians lost what certain words meant. many Christians today remain confused. If you return to Jewish sources to see what they say Gehenna and Paradise mean, some of the confusion gets cleared up. For example, there is a teaching that Gehenna and Paradise are next to each other, separated by a very small space. Knowing that helped explain to me the rich man in "hell" talking to Abraham. It also explained for me how Jesus could be with the thief in Paradise the same day as the crucifixion -- but he still hadn't ascended to the Father when he talked to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection.

Things did change, I would say, from the Old Testament era to the New. Thus we see people coming out of their graves after the Crucifixion. Again that is Matthew -- don't take it as physical bodies coming out. Souls which had been asleep were wakened. Sinful men did not see them. If they had, Josephus would have written about it since he loved to write of the miraculous. This relates, I believe, to Genesis in a different way -- how the earth itself goes through its stages. If a thousand years is a day, we can ask if the Flood of Noah may correspond with Day 2 in Genesis 1. I say it does. If we see that, then we can see that Jesus arrived at the end of Day 4. When new lights were set in the heavens. He also helped usher in Day 5 -- and the symbol of the fish for Christianity is very apt. Something got changed both in the "lower waters" and "upper waters." The patterns of things in the heavens were changed. These patterns were already true in the first Heaven. The second and third heavens came more in line with the the one at the top; and then they acted on the earth more.

How a day is like a thousand years is also acceptable Jewish theology; and thus they have their beliefs about six thousand years being followed by another thousand.

 

[Giuliano]

I had to break my post into parts since it was too long.

Another interesting point, I would love for you to elaborate on that.

First and most importantly to me, He said he had seen what he spoke about. Second, his statement itself says he, as Son of Man, came down from Heaven -- and also is in Heaven.

I tend to believe many Christians also already have a foot in Heaven but lack awareness of it in their daily lives as men on earth. It can be true without people knowing it in their daily type of awareness.

Ephesians 2:6 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

There are also spiritual problems in "high places" which need correcting. These could be called "spiritual sins." I believe the Catholic Church makes a distinction between spiritual sins and other types. I cannot judge my fellow Christians on this since I believe we first have to deal with carnal and earthly sins; if we do that, then we begin to see the spiritual ones so we can repent of them. Think of when the Bible says Satan shows up -- in person -- and you will find he's accusing or testing one of the saints. This is all to the Glory of God because God does not allow this test unless He knows the saint can pass the test. When Satan accused Joshua the High Priest, he happened to be right. Joshua did have dirty garments. The matter got resolved easily enough -- the text does not say it, but Joshua repented of a certain sin -- and then he could be given clean garments. The Jews say his sin was allowing his sons to marry inappropriately. He corrected it.

Any saint who reaches a certain level should not be surprised by this test; and Satan is cast out of heaven because of it. Every saint who does this is removing a foothold for Satan in heaven. The person who still has spiritual problems is unknowingly giving Satan a place to stand in heaven. Part of the "spiritual wickedness in high places" Paul wrote about in Ephesians 6:12 can be our own. Part can also be spiritual wickedness of others, as it was with Jacob and Esau. Perhaps Paul had them in mind since he uses the word "wrestle."

Fascinating, So how you did you come to this finding? I am interested not critical. You have a method that is for sure.

The idea itself is from the Oral Torah or Talmud. I did not accept it at first, so I am not going to be critical or to complain if others don't accept it. One thing seems fairly sure to me is that Jacob did not see God's face in the way Moses asked to. After all, the text says the being showed up as "a man." Some things can be obscured by translation. One thing obscured in that passage is that the same word is used twice in that chapter but almost always translated differently. Christians do not find it hard to believe that Jesus could call angels and get them to do what he wanted. They may find it hard to believe Jacob could. Yet the text certainly suggests that possibility. First the word is translated (in the King James Version) as angels; two verses later, it's rendered messengers.

Genesis 32:And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him.
2 And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God's host: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim.
3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.

I suggest Jacob sent angels to go see what was going on. They returned and told him. I think the angels Jacob sent got the attention of Esau's Guardian Angel.

Another factor is why Rebekkah received the prophetic message and not Isaac about their two sons. How does it relate to Adams' fall? We can read about "Edom" without realizing it's written the same way in Hebrew as "Adam" -- only the vowels which are not in the original text are different.

I was very perplexed by this:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Genesis 33:14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

Jacob knew better than to trust his fate in Esau's hands at Seir. He was following the rule Jesus talked about later -- about being as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. "Jacob" did finally get to Seir a few hundred years later.

Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

The Edomites, as descendants of Esau, were to be protected too even though they were a troublesome lot.

Deuteronomy 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

The struggle between Jacob and Esau is a continuing one throughout history, continuing even today. Many of the troubles Israel experienced were caused by the Edomites. Herod the Great by the way was an Edomite, although his family had allegedly converted to Judaism. There is a special antagonism between the Edomites and the tribe of Benjamin that shows up more than once; but this post is getting too long to go into too many details.

What I see in my interpretation is a manifestation of God's Love. The Scriptures may say God "hated" Esau, but that word really means "avoided." God's plan was to save Esau and his descendants even if they had the fallen Adamic nature. For me, if I can't see how a passage in the Bible helps me love God or my fellow man better, I figure I don't have the right take on it yet.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I am not even that concerned if parts of the Bible might not be authentic. If there are fake passages, I suppose I wouldn't be able to see God's Love in them. So where there are passages I don't understand, I do not make a firm conclusion and do not base my action on them. Perhaps I am lacking in understanding, perhaps they're not authentic. I don't know. Only when a passage shows me God's Love and makes me love him more or when it shows me how to love my neighbor better do I think I'm probably on the right track.

 

[Grailhunter]

I had to break my post into parts since it was too long.
First and most importantly to me, He said he had seen what he spoke about. Second, his statement itself says he, as Son of Man, came down from Heaven -- and also is in Heaven.

I tend to believe many Christians also already have a foot in Heaven but lack awareness of it in their daily lives as men on earth. It can be true without people knowing it in their daily type of awareness.

Ephesians 2:6 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

There are also spiritual problems in "high places" which need correcting. These could be called "spiritual sins." I believe the Catholic Church makes a distinction between spiritual sins and other types. I cannot judge my fellow Christians on this since I believe we first have to deal with carnal and earthly sins; if we do that, then we begin to see the spiritual ones so we can repent of them. Think of when the Bible says Satan shows up -- in person -- and you will find he's accusing or testing one of the saints. This is all to the Glory of God because God does not allow this test unless He knows the saint can pass the test. When Satan accused Joshua the High Priest, he happened to be right. Joshua did have dirty garments. The matter got resolved easily enough -- the text does not say it, but Joshua repented of a certain sin -- and then he could be given clean garments. The Jews say his sin was allowing his sons to marry inappropriately. He corrected it.

Any saint who reaches a certain level should not be surprised by this test; and Satan is cast out of heaven because of it. Every saint who does this is removing a foothold for Satan in heaven. The person who still has spiritual problems is unknowingly giving Satan a place to stand in heaven. Part of the "spiritual wickedness in high places" Paul wrote about in Ephesians 6:12 can be our own. Part can also be spiritual wickedness of others, as it was with Jacob and Esau. Perhaps Paul had them in mind since he uses the word "wrestle."

The idea itself is from the Oral Torah or Talmud. I did not accept it at first, so I am not going to be critical or to complain if others don't accept it. One thing seems fairly sure to me is that Jacob did not see God's face in the way Moses asked to. After all, the text says the being showed up as "a man." Some things can be obscured by translation. One thing obscured in that passage is that the same word is used twice in that chapter but almost always translated differently. Christians do not find it hard to believe that Jesus could call angels and get them to do what he wanted. They may find it hard to believe Jacob could. Yet the text certainly suggests that possibility. First the word is translated (in the King James Version) as angels; two verses later, it's rendered messengers.

Genesis 32:And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him.
2 And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God's host: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim.
3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.

I suggest Jacob sent angels to go see what was going on. They returned and told him. I think the angels Jacob sent got the attention of Esau's Guardian Angel.

Another factor is why Rebekkah received the prophetic message and not Isaac about their two sons. How does it relate to Adams' fall? We can read about "Edom" without realizing it's written the same way in Hebrew as "Adam" -- only the vowels which are not in the original text are different.

I was very perplexed by this:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Genesis 33:14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

Jacob knew better than to trust his fate in Esau's hands at Seir. He was following the rule Jesus talked about later -- about being as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. "Jacob" did finally get to Seir a few hundred years later.

Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

The Edomites, as descendants of Esau, were to be protected too even though they were a troublesome lot.

Deuteronomy 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

The struggle between Jacob and Esau is a continuing one throughout history, continuing even today. Many of the troubles Israel experienced were caused by the Edomites. Herod the Great by the way was an Edomite, although his family had allegedly converted to Judaism. There is a special antagonism between the Edomites and the tribe of Benjamin that shows up more than once; but this post is getting too long to go into too many details.

What I see in my interpretation is a manifestation of God's Love. The Scriptures may say God "hated" Esau, but that word really means "avoided." God's plan was to save Esau and his descendants even if they had the fallen Adamic nature. For me, if I can't see how a passage in the Bible helps me love God or my fellow man better, I figure I don't have the right take on it yet.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I am not even that concerned if parts of the Bible might not be authentic. If there are fake passages, I suppose I wouldn't be able to see God's Love in them. So where there are passages I don't understand, I do not make a firm conclusion and do not base my action on them. Perhaps I am lacking in understanding, perhaps they're not authentic. I don't know. Only when a passage shows me God's Love and makes me love him more or when it shows me how to love my neighbor better do I think I'm probably on the right track.

Ya...this is going to take me a while. Just the sort of thing I enjoy. God bless Giuliano.

 

[Grailhunter]

The star was physical but not a celestial body. Magi followed it and it came to rest over Christ's home in Nazareth. (Many believe it appeared over the nativity.) Traditionally it is said that the Magi were from the east...well if they were from the east and saw the star in the east they would have traveled the wrong way.

When considering that question, I was compelled to ask why Herod couldn't see it and follow it if it was a physical phenomenon; and I ask you the same question. The Gospel according to Matthew is distinctly different from the others to me in that it contains sections which once convinced me the entire book was a forgery of sorts until I realized the passages in question were like what the Jews call midrashim. People from the period in which it was written would have a better idea of which sections to take literally in historical and physical details, and which required a spiritual application. There is no history of Herod slaughtering infants, no history of a census. Those details are highly significant spiritually -- but I don't see them as historical details.

The passage says they came from the east. That would be right too; and I see them as descendants of the sons of Abraham which got sent to the east. How should we read Mt 2:9 which says, "and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them." Does that mean the star was to the east of them, or does it mean they had been in the east when they first saw it? I think the answer is clear. Compare too to how Abraham moved from the east to the west, and how he built his altar so he faced west. The Jewish Temple was also built so the people faced west.

The passage also says Herod sent them to Bethlehem. "And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."

What the historical facts are seem uncertain to me. What they were also seems to have been unclear to the author of this passage from Matthew.
We are told that an angel told Joseph to flee (whether in Bethlehem or Nazareth) to escape the wrath of Herod; later when Herod dies, the angel appears and tells Joseph it's safe to return home. Joseph does not go to Bethehem but then establishes residence in Nazareth.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

If an angel saved your life by warning you, would you be frightened to return if an angel told you it was safe to return? It's an odd passage. Also odd is that no prophecy I know of says, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This looks to me as if someone was trying to explain why Jesus came from Nazareth but somehow got born in Bethelem. I think Luke's explanation of it is more historically accurate. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth to begin with. The journey to Bethlehem probably coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles.


This is the section that I am going to cover first. Keep in mind that this is from my perspective. By the time I get done you will probably think of something else.

First off I just want to say that the Gospel of Matthew and John have their uniquenesses.

The person that wrote the Gospel of Matthew had some similarities to James the brother, in that they were what many call Jewish-Christians. In that, to some degree they saw Christ as the Messiah, but saw the WAY as a sub-set of Judaism, to the junior. Christians are not going to understand how this can be because they think the Messiah would have been the it, and the all. But the Jews were thinking that the Messiah was going to be a human…we know how that turned out. But their big hero-prophet was Elijah, taken up in sky….Now he was suppose to “introduce” the Messiah, as an event. Jews of the time period were visualizing him coming back in chariot to proclaim the warlord-messiah. So anyway, Matthew seems different because it is written from a more Jewish perspective. This is one of the reasons that you have the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew, and the phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and pearls are mentioned three times in Matthew and one of them being the story of casting pearls before swine, there is a lot of Jewish background and thought in Matthew. John has some issues, we can talk about that later.

Next is the Star and the Magi
Again I am going to say, this is how I see it, not trying to shove it down you throat.

The Star is not a celestial object, it is a light, it maybe a strobe light and it maybe akin to the dove of Christ’s baptism. The reason I say this is because the scriptures refer to what occurs above Christ as like a dove…not necessary a dove. If you ever get to chance to see a pure white dove in flight in the sunlight, depending on your angle it will look like a strobe light, this maybe the same “thing”. Either way this light moves and stops….I am thinking it is a hundred foot or so off the ground. I am thinking the Magi are somewhere around Alexandria, Egypt. The Magi see the light in the east, what else would the scriptures call it but a star. They head out and follow the star around the Mediterranean and enter Nazareth from the west and the light comes to a rest above Christ, in Nazareth. At which point they give Christ a treasure and worshiped him, possibly the first people to worship Him. Herod is involved but I do not think he saw the light, or would know what it meant. Then as you know Joseph has a dream and he is warned and is directed to Egypt. The mere grandeur of the event---A God King---would suggest that the treasure involved was significant so we do not know how many camels carried the treasure. And the Magi probably escorted them back to Egypt and provided accommodations.

There are several parts of this story that bothered Christians and as time went on the issues got worse. The Christians have a dilemma, they are faced with the scripture that say, Do not suffer a witch to live and associated concepts, so then they are face with….

The word Magi means witch or sorcerer. This has been debated, some suggesting they were magicians, but like the professor said, back then the word was magikin, a person of magic, so it is the same thing. So that just opened a can of worms. And just for giggles if you are interested in conspiracies, you will find Christian source materials that will try to cover this up. Just check in an actual linguistic book.

So….

Why did witches know about Christ?
Why would they be interested in Christ?
How would they know about the light…star?
Why would they travel the distance?
Why would they give Him a treasure?
Where would they get a treasure?
Why would they worship Christ?

Then, if they were that interested, why would they vanish from the storyline?

I am going to propose that they do not leave the storyline at all, but that is another story.

As it turns out the Magi are historical figures and are associated with Egypt and Persia. They were known to be wise and this will come into play later. The Magi are associated with Melchizedek and this does an end around to Christ because He is a High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek. They never left His side. Which is going to explain why that group gave Him a treasure. So anyway, when it came time to translate the scriptures, they just could not bring themselves to put the word Magi there, so eventually they changed the word to “wise men” as it sits in the KJV now. Then came the traditions and songs indicating “Oh three Kings of Orient are” That they were kings, and only three and all male and from the east. None of that is in the scriptures. So now the story is off the track and it starts running around like a toy Christmas train on the carpet. The scriptures indicate that the Magi gave Christ a treasure. The Christians did not know what to think of that. So tradition changed the story so that the Magi only gave Christ trinket gifts of frankincense, gold, and myrrh. The scriptures also indicate that the Magi worshiped Christ, then we are led to believe they just left. The Magi were Pagans and Christianity would eventually welcome Pagans into the fold and then within a century take it over… people like to call them Gentiles. But that still does not answer why they were worshiping Him…and I am not going to answer any more of these questions, because I do not want to be burnt at the stake.

I think Luke's explanation of it is more historically accurate. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth to begin with. The journey to Bethlehem probably coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles.

Agreed….. The census thing is off because although censuses did occur, but then they did not require travel back to a place of birth, this would have shut everything down. Rome would not care where they were born and there were no censuses registered in this time period.

Still looking at the rest…..Thank you much.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have no quarrel about Jesus having the Divine Nature. If possessing the Divine Nature makes Jesus God, then I suppose all Christians might be called Divine someday.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Hi G,
Being a son of God and having the NATURE of God are totally different.
We have the nature of a human being...not of God.

And I think I owe you a post but I can't remember!

Let me ask you this:
If Jesus is not God in nature...is His death still valid as an atonement?

 

[Nancy]

Hi G,
Being a son of God and having the NATURE of God are totally different.
We have the nature of a human being...not of God.

And I think I owe you a post but I can't remember!

Let me ask you this:
If Jesus is not God in nature...is His death still valid as an atonement?

"If Jesus is not God in nature...is His death still valid as an atonement?"
Perfect question

 

[GodsGrace]

When considering that question, I was compelled to ask why Herod couldn't see it and follow it if it was a physical phenomenon; and I ask you the same question. The Gospel according to Matthew is distinctly different from the others to me in that it contains sections which once convinced me the entire book was a forgery of sorts until I realized the passages in question were like what the Jews call midrashim. People from the period in which it was written would have a better idea of which sections to take literally in historical and physical details, and which required a spiritual application. There is no history of Herod slaughtering infants, no history of a census. Those details are highly significant spiritually -- but I don't see them as historical details.

The passage says they came from the east. That would be right too; and I see them as descendants of the sons of Abraham which got sent to the east. How should we read Mt 2:9 which says, "and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them." Does that mean the star was to the east of them, or does it mean they had been in the east when they first saw it? I think the answer is clear. Compare too to how Abraham moved from the east to the west, and how he built his altar so he faced west. The Jewish Temple was also built so the people faced west.

The passage also says Herod sent them to Bethlehem. "And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."

What the historical facts are seem uncertain to me. What they were also seems to have been unclear to the author of this passage from Matthew.
We are told that an angel told Joseph to flee (whether in Bethlehem or Nazareth) to escape the wrath of Herod; later when Herod dies, the angel appears and tells Joseph it's safe to return home. Joseph does not go to Bethehem but then establishes residence in Nazareth.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

If an angel saved your life by warning you, would you be frightened to return if an angel told you it was safe to return? It's an odd passage. Also odd is that no prophecy I know of says, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This looks to me as if someone was trying to explain why Jesus came from Nazareth but somehow got born in Bethelem. I think Luke's explanation of it is more historically accurate. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth to begin with. The journey to Bethlehem probably coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles.


This is the section that I am going to cover first. Keep in mind that this is from my perspective. By the time I get done you will probably think of something else.

First off I just want to say that the Gospel of Matthew and John have their uniquenesses.

The person that wrote the Gospel of Matthew had some similarities to James the brother, in that they were what many call Jewish-Christians. In that, to some degree they saw Christ as the Messiah, but saw the WAY as a sub-set of Judaism, to the junior. Christians are not going to understand how this can be because they think the Messiah would have been the it, and the all. But the Jews were thinking that the Messiah was going to be a human…we know how that turned out. But their big hero-prophet was Elijah, taken up in sky….Now he was suppose to “introduce” the Messiah, as an event. Jews of the time period were visualizing him coming back in chariot to proclaim the warlord-messiah. So anyway, Matthew seems different because it is written from a more Jewish perspective. This is one of the reasons that you have the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew, and the phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and pearls are mentioned three times in Matthew and one of them being the story of casting pearls before swine, there is a lot of Jewish background and thought in Matthew. John has some issues, we can talk about that later.

Next is the Star and the Magi
Again I am going to say, this is how I see it, not trying to shove it down you throat.

The Star is not a celestial object, it is a light, it maybe a strobe light and it maybe akin to the dove of Christ’s baptism. The reason I say this is because the scriptures refer to what occurs above Christ as like a dove…not necessary a dove. If you ever get to chance to see a pure white dove in flight in the sunlight, depending on your angle it will look like a strobe light, this maybe the same “thing”. Either way this light moves and stops….I am thinking it is a hundred foot or so off the ground. I am thinking the Magi are somewhere around Alexandria, Egypt. The Magi see the light in the east, what else would the scriptures call it but a star. They head out and follow the star around the Mediterranean and enter Nazareth from the west and the light comes to a rest above Christ, in Nazareth. At which point they give Christ a treasure and worshiped him, possibly the first people to worship Him. Herod is involved but I do not think he saw the light, or would know what it meant. Then as you know Joseph has a dream and he is warned and is directed to Egypt. The mere grandeur of the event---A God King---would suggest that the treasure involved was significant so we do not know how many camels carried the treasure. And the Magi probably escorted them back to Egypt and provided accommodations.

There are several parts of this story that bothered Christians and as time went on the issues got worse. The Christians have a dilemma, they are faced with the scripture that say, Do not suffer a witch to live and associated concepts, so then they are face with….

The word Magi means witch or sorcerer. This has been debated, some suggesting they were magicians, but like the professor said, back then the word was magikin, a person of magic, so it is the same thing. So that just opened a can of worms. And just for giggles if you are interested in conspiracies, you will find Christian source materials that will try to cover this up. Just check in an actual linguistic book.

So….

Why did witches know about Christ?
Why would they be interested in Christ?
How would they know about the light…star?
Why would they travel the distance?
Why would they give Him a treasure?
Where would they get a treasure?
Why would they worship Christ?

Then, if they were that interested, why would they vanish from the storyline?

I am going to propose that they do not leave the storyline at all, but that is another story.

As it turns out the Magi are historical figures and are associated with Egypt and Persia. They were known to be wise and this will come into play later. The Magi are associated with Melchizedek and this does an end around to Christ because He is a High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek. They never left His side. Which is going to explain why that group gave Him a treasure. So anyway, when it came time to translate the scriptures, they just could not bring themselves to put the word Magi there, so eventually they changed the word to “wise men” as it sits in the KJV now. Then came the traditions and songs indicating “Oh three Kings of Orient are” That they were kings, and only three and all male and from the east. None of that is in the scriptures. So now the story is off the track and it starts running around like a toy Christmas train on the carpet. The scriptures indicate that the Magi gave Christ a treasure. The Christians did not know what to think of that. So tradition changed the story so that the Magi only gave Christ trinket gifts of frankincense, gold, and myrrh. The scriptures also indicate that the Magi worshiped Christ, then we are led to believe they just left. The Magi were Pagans and Christianity would eventually welcome Pagans into the fold and then within a century take it over… people like to call them Gentiles. But that still does not answer why they were worshiping Him…and I am not going to answer any more of these questions, because I do not want to be burnt at the stake.

I think Luke's explanation of it is more historically accurate. Both Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth to begin with. The journey to Bethlehem probably coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles.

Agreed….. The census thing is off because although censuses did occur, but then they did not require travel back to a place of birth, this would have shut everything down. Rome would not care where they were born and there were no censuses registered in this time period.

Still looking at the rest…..Thank you much.

 

[Giuliano]

Hi G,
Being a son of God and having the NATURE of God are totally different.
We have the nature of a human being...not of God.

I would say God gave us His nature but we often act like the devil. We are supposed to be temples of God but often deny His proper dwelling place.

And I think I owe you a post but I can't remember!

Don't worry about it. I am comfortable if you respond to things you feel like and forget other things. It may even be better that way since I don't want to bore you with things that may not interest you.

Let me ask you this:
If Jesus is not God in nature...is His death still valid as an atonement?

I don't know what people by atonement. People seem to have different ideas about it.

Let me say this about it. Notice that Adam was formed from earth taken from outside Eden. This was necessary. Adam had to be "compatible" with all humanity. Several words are related: Blood is "dam" in Hebrew. Take that blood and breath the Breath of Life into it. The Hebrew aleph signifies air, the breath -- and we get Adam. The ground or earth from which Adam was formed is "adamah" a feminine noun derived from "dam."

For me, there is a potential manifestation of God in matter. It is unconscious, dormant, etc. Thus the potential for light existed within the darkness. It was already there in creation, but concealed -- waiting to be revealed at the Word, "Let there be light." It took some time for the light to appear. Darkness prevailed at first, and then the light appeared.

In order for the offspring of Adam to be compatible with all humanity, his "blood" had to be like theirs.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The spiritual blood is what matters. The Catholic Church correctly refers to it as the Blood of Christ. Many call it the blood of Jesus, but that is not good enough for me. It must be infused with the Spirit -- the aleph or "a" that got added to "dam".

The life is in the blood. When Adam erred, the Spirit left his blood. He was subject to death. He was already dead spiritually -- dying the same day he ate of the forbidden fruit. He was left with only the mortal blood of "dam" which all mortal men have. Thus his animal body continued to walk around. There is a type of life in animals to be sure, but their blood is not the same. Sacrificing animals could make people ritually clean since the blood of animals shares a trait with men spiritually; but they still needed to repent of their sins if they had sinned. In some cases, people could become unclean through no fault of their own, like women on their periods. They had not sinned, but they became ritually unclean.

The Blood of Christ could also be called the Blood of the Son of Man -- ben 'Adam. Thus it is spiritual blood, and not the physical blood. What good would physical blood do? And remember Jesus gave his disciples his Blood before he was crucified. He did more than that too:

I love to compare these two verses -- and while we could say the souls of animals have life in one way, Genesis tells us there was another type of life given to Adam.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

They were becoming like him when he imparted that "breath of life." They had become ready to receive it, so they did. Adam had the potential to become a quickening spirit but failed when he erred and died spiritually himself. Thus, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." So I believe.

 

[Giuliano]

First off I just want to say that the Gospel of Matthew and John have their uniquenesses.

The person that wrote the Gospel of Matthew had some similarities to James the brother, in that they were what many call Jewish-Christians. In that, to some degree they saw Christ as the Messiah, but saw the WAY as a sub-set of Judaism, to the junior. Christians are not going to understand how this can be because they think the Messiah would have been the it, and the all. But the Jews were thinking that the Messiah was going to be a human…we know how that turned out. But their big hero-prophet was Elijah, taken up in sky….Now he was suppose to “introduce” the Messiah, as an event. Jews of the time period were visualizing him coming back in chariot to proclaim the warlord-messiah. So anyway, Matthew seems different because it is written from a more Jewish perspective. This is one of the reasons that you have the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew, and the phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and pearls are mentioned three times in Matthew and one of them being the story of casting pearls before swine, there is a lot of Jewish background and thought in Matthew. John has some issues, we can talk about that later.

It was tedious work, but some years ago I compared the Matthew, Mark and Luke line by line in the Greek. From the textual differences of the parallel passages, I reached the conclusion that parts of Mark had been taken and translated into Hebrew and that the version we have today was the result of it being translated back into Greek.

The Star is not a celestial object, it is a light, it maybe a strobe light and it maybe akin to the dove of Christ’s baptism. The reason I say this is because the scriptures refer to what occurs above Christ as like a dove…not necessary a dove. If you ever get to chance to see a pure white dove in flight in the sunlight, depending on your angle it will look like a strobe light, this maybe the same “thing”. Either way this light moves and stops….I am thinking it is a hundred foot or so off the ground. I am thinking the Magi are somewhere around Alexandria, Egypt. The Magi see the light in the east, what else would the scriptures call it but a star. They head out and follow the star around the Mediterranean and enter Nazareth from the west and the light comes to a rest above Christ, in Nazareth. At which point they give Christ a treasure and worshiped him, possibly the first people to worship Him. Herod is involved but I do not think he saw the light, or would know what it meant. Then as you know Joseph has a dream and he is warned and is directed to Egypt. The mere grandeur of the event---A God King---would suggest that the treasure involved was significant so we do not know how many camels carried the treasure. And the Magi probably escorted them back to Egypt and provided accommodations.

The point that bothers with with that explanation is why couldn't Herod see it after being told about it?

There are several parts of this story that bothered Christians and as time went on the issues got worse. The Christians have a dilemma, they are faced with the scripture that say, Do not suffer a witch to live and associated concepts, so then they are face with….

I'm not sure "witch" is what is meant. The Hebrew means mutterer or whisperer, probably meaning someone who whispered spells or curses. I doubt whatever was meant in the Old Testament relates to the European concept of witchcraft. There had been a witchcraft craze in Europe. King James seemed obsessed with the subject.

The word Magi means witch or sorcerer. This has been debated, some suggesting they were magicians, but like the professor said, back then the word was magikin, a person of magic, so it is the same thing. So that just opened a can of worms.

Few people have actually looked into the topic of magic. I would say there are lawful uses of certain principles and there are unlawful uses. The unlawful uses involve violating the free will of others.

And just for giggles if you are interested in conspiracies, you will find Christian source materials that will try to cover this up. Just check in an actual linguistic book.

So….

Why did witches know about Christ?
Why would they be interested in Christ?
How would they know about the light…star?
Why would they travel the distance?
Why would they give Him a treasure?
Where would they get a treasure?
Why would they worship Christ?

Kaballah can be said to be a form of magic. Indeed most modern magic is based on it indirectly. I've studied kaballah; and some parts of the Bible make little sense without some knowledge of kaballah. John's Revelation is full of concepts related to kaballah.

Then, if they were that interested, why would they vanish from the storyline?

I am going to propose that they do not leave the storyline at all, but that is another story.

As it turns out the Magi are historical figures and are associated with Egypt and Persia. They were known to be wise and this will come into play later. The Magi are associated with Melchizedek and this does an end around to Christ because He is a High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek. They never left His side. Which is going to explain why that group gave Him a treasure. So anyway, when it came time to translate the scriptures, they just could not bring themselves to put the word Magi there, so eventually they changed the word to “wise men” as it sits in the KJV now. Then came the traditions and songs indicating “Oh three Kings of Orient are” That they were kings, and only three and all male and from the east. None of that is in the scriptures. So now the story is off the track and it starts running around like a toy Christmas train on the carpet. The scriptures indicate that the Magi gave Christ a treasure. The Christians did not know what to think of that. So tradition changed the story so that the Magi only gave Christ trinket gifts of frankincense, gold, and myrrh. The scriptures also indicate that the Magi worshiped Christ, then we are led to believe they just left. The Magi were Pagans and Christianity would eventually welcome Pagans into the fold and then within a century take it over… people like to call them Gentiles. But that still does not answer why they were worshiping Him…and I am not going to answer any more of these questions, because I do not want to be burnt at the stake.

I'm not sure they were pagans. Don't forget Jesus said he had other sheep in other folds.

Agreed….. The census thing is off because although censuses did occur, but then they did not require travel back to a place of birth, this would have shut everything down. Rome would not care where they were born and there were no censuses registered in this time period.

The census idea can be related to the Old Testament counting of the people. Remember what happened when David decided to count the people without following proper procedure?

 

[Grailhunter]

@Giuliano @GodsGrace Good Morning!

This is another somewhat complicated subject. I think Nicodemus knew things most people in his day did not. Indeed I think he knew exactly what "born of the Spirit" meant and was testing Jesus to see if he did. Jesus did a little teasing back -- You're a master of Israel and don't know this? Think of what Jesus told Nicodemus. What he told him convinced Nicodemus he was who Nicodemus hoped he was. When Paul speaks of things like this, he calls them "mysteries."



Yea, you had to go straight to John didn’t yea. What we are going to run into here with John, is that through out that book we can see stories that seem to be chopped, stories that seem to be part of the beginning and then end without closure. Then there are several passages that seem to be added and some are called periscope scriptures that seem to come out of nowhere. The opinion is that people changed John to accommodate their beliefs. John was the last book to….I am going to say come into public view. By the turn of the century Christians are starving for information, they can’t get enough. At this point the Gospels are not seen as scriptures, more like the most exciting novel you have ever read. A novel about a relationship between “God” and Mankind, which is alien to Judaism and Pagan mythology. (Not going to get into the Trinity here.) So the release of the Gospel of John is big news. Beliefs have been formed and they wanted John to confirm those beliefs. We do not know if John did or did not do this, but scholars seem to believe that John at one time was the largest Gospel and what we have is half of its original size. One of the glaring examples of this is that John is the Gospel that defines the importance of the bread and wine ritual, but although John has the most details regarding the Last Supper, it does not include the bread and wine ritual. So John could have been much larger, which would make sense, because John traveled with Mary the Mother and she could have told him a lot more than what the other Apostles knew.


Case in point here with Nicodemus, he comes to Christ and they have a conversation, which apparently is not entirely noted in the scriptures because, out of the blue Christ seems to be answering an unasked question about salvation…as in John 3:3 Jesus answered and said…. So we see terms and phrases such as “unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Christ then gets into the conversation about the spiritual things that Nicodemus and other Jews are going to have a hard time understanding, because the Jews know very little about the spiritual. Barely grasping the concept of souls, Shoal, and Angels etc. Now this conversion my not have been just one conversion, because Nicodemus becomes disconnect from the conversion and never confirms his understanding or not understanding. Of course Chapter 3 is an explosive theological commentary. It leads to the famous John 3:16 verses, this chapter touches and alludes to several theological truths. I am not going to comment on all of the differing beliefs of Baptism, and I am going to be direct, sorry in advance if it steps on someone’s toes.


What Christ is speaking of here is the core and the heart of salvation. Why did it happen? Because “God” loved us sooooo much that he was willing to sacrifice His only begotten Son. His real Son, and Christ was willing to sacrifice Himself. But to fully understand this chapter we need to take a few things into consideration. Christ and John the Baptist were connected in a few ways beyond just being cousins, inside their mother’s wombs they are more or less greeting each other. What John the Baptist says is a spoiler alert. “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” It is a definitive statement, it is an absolute. Yes, Christ was powerful enough to take away the sins of the world….period…and so it was done when He passed on the Cross. Some people actually believe He was not powerful enough to get that done. lol John the Baptist also says that Christ would baptize us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This pretty much describes Pentecost. But does this happen with every baptism? Some denominations believe that it does, and I will not disagree. But it does leave some Christians confused and rightly so. When we do wrong, is it still called sin? Does it affect us the same way? It is a different topic.


The topic of sin would extend this post. What Christ is describing is the most complicated concept of baptism and its importance. “unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is another definitive and absolute verse…you need to get it right. The mystery is with the cultural concept of the word born. A king could be born of a war. A king could be the product or be produced from a war. The new person is produced from the water and the spirit, baptism is physical and spiritual. The concepts and beliefs of the affects of baptism vary. One preacher may believe it does nothing. As they immerse the individual they say it is an act of obedience and public display. So what happens from there, only God knows. Baptism is spiritual, physical, and psychological. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing but some people cannot forgive themselves. The understanding that the person that goes down in the water, is not the same person that comes up is important to the individual. God has no memory of the person that died in Him. Satan would like to whisper in their ear and say, “That thing you did, God will never forgive you for that!” The physical side is the person goes down in the water and comes up, the cleansing, as it is commonly known. The spiritual and psychological side is that you come up a new person. Some people like the born again thing or don’t like it. I don’t care. So then John did not lie, Christ took away the sin of the world. That system and tally is gone and Christ broke the slate. Nothing to tally the sins on anymore. Then….the individual sins that darken the soul of people were taken away by baptism. From there on, what they/we do wrong is between us and Christ and does not darken our souls. There is more on the topic of sin and we can cover that at another time, but beliefs regarding baptism were fully evolved in the early church and can be historically proven, as in what people believed, by their actions. That is, some people would wait until they were about to die to be baptized, thinking that they would enter heaven in a pure state. Right, wrong, or indifferent this is what some did and according to history this is what Constantine did, and you can be sure he was well advised about the affects of baptism. So the word born means; the product or produced by the water and spirit. Now why was John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance important…it sure was…but we can save that for another topic.

 

[Grailhunter]

@Giuliano

I'm not sure "witch" is what is meant. The Hebrew means mutterer or whisperer, probably meaning someone who whispered spells or curses. I doubt whatever was meant in the Old Testament relates to the European concept of witchcraft. There had been a witchcraft craze in Europe. King James seemed obsessed with the subject.

Witches lol The word Magi in the Koine Greek simply means witch or sorcerer. I brought up magician as a discussion that I knew that happened. The 1st century understanding of a witch is very broad and of course by the time of the Witch-hunts it changes. In the middle-ages you are dealing with the hysteria of Satanic witches. Most of the women tortured in the middle-ages were Christian women.

The Magi were more science than magi-kins. Back then if you knew of something or could do something that no one else could, you were suspect of being a witch. The skills of these people eventually became known as the Craft...and then that goes on. Some of the skill sets of the Magi was supposedly astrology and astronomy. It is the shock factor that the early translates of the scriptures had to deal with. Matthew had to document that Christ had been there for up to around a year and the Jews did not know about Him and God was talking to the Magi, rather than the Jews. Matt 2:12 and the question is, those that were looking to kill the baby, were they Jews or Romans?

 

[brakelite]

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting. The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- it was what people could see. As aspect of someone that is presented to or perceived by others. The Catholic Church used Latin, and sometimes their Greek wasn't that good. (That also helped lead to the controversy over the filioque clause when they thought a strict translation was inadequate and they needed to add flilioque bit to clarify.) Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

That Council of Ephesus was very political, being largely who would dominate, Cyril of Alexandria or Nestorius. Nestorius, perhaps wisely, came with troops to protect himself.

I don't think God is something man can analyze the way we study butterflies. People arguing over some things, when they don't really know, and then lambasting others as heretics, doesn't seem right to me. Man should focus more on the things he does know, and the things he knows he should do.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I really have no major objection to the Trinity idea unless someone says, "I can't do that. Jesus could do it, but he was God. I can't do that because I'm not God." I've had people tell me that, excusing their disobedience to the Law of Love that way.

God is a mystery to me. What I know about Him mostly comes from the words reported in the Bible. Beyond that, what can I know?

Would like to give 20 likes for that.

 

[Giuliano]

@Giuliano

I'm not sure "witch" is what is meant. The Hebrew means mutterer or whisperer, probably meaning someone who whispered spells or curses. I doubt whatever was meant in the Old Testament relates to the European concept of witchcraft. There had been a witchcraft craze in Europe. King James seemed obsessed with the subject.

Witches lol The word Magi in the Koine Greek simply means witch or sorcerer. I brought up magician as a discussion that I knew that happened. The 1st century understanding of a witch is very broad and of course by the time of the Witch-hunts it changes. In the middle-ages you are dealing with the hysteria of Satanic witches. Most of the women tortured in the middle-ages were Christian women.

The Magi were more science than magi-kins. Back then if you knew of something or could do something that no one else could, you were suspect of being a witch. The skills of these people eventually became known as the Craft...and then that goes on. Some of the skill sets of the Magi was supposedly astrology and astronomy. It is the shock factor that the early translates of the scriptures had to deal with. Matthew had to document that Christ had been there for up to around a year and the Jews did not know about Him and God was talking to the Magi, rather than the Jews. Matt 2:12 and the question is, those that were looking to kill the baby, were they Jews or Romans?

I have studied astrology, and that gave me an advantage when reading a few sections of the Bible. I've also discussed astrology with an Orthodox Jew, and we agreed on how it can be used both unlawfully and lawfully.

Take the four cherubim for example. Someone who's studied astrology sees something almost immediately when a lion, a calf, a man and an eagle are mentioned. Another example is the order of the metals here:

Numbers 31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

Mercury or quicksilver is missing since it wasn't known to them; but the rest are lined up according to how astrologers line up the planets which rule metals: Sun, moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Counting the value of letters (gematria) is also a magical thing straight out of kaballah. Then there is the matter of the cherubim I mentioned above.

The Jews who had the highest level of understanding in this hidden knowledge never discussed it openly. It was passed on orally. They may hint at it however. Paul obviously had some knowledge of it -- you can see that in his writings at times, and he studied with Gamaliel. John certainly had studied it.

To Nicodemus now. The conversation starts off strangely. You noticed the odd break, but didn't investigate it enough. Nicodemus appears to pay Jesus a high compliment and Jesus appears to ignore it and start talking about something else entirely. What was going on? No learned rabbi would say what Nicodemus said and be sincere about it. Nicodemus is fishing because he's not sure who or what Jesus is. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." That makes no sense for anyone who knew what Moses said. Signs and wonders do not prove someone is from God. Moses warned about it. Jesus also disapproved of people craving signs and wonders.

I think Nicodemus was testing Jesus, to see if he was full of pride. He threw out this piece of flattery to see how Jesus would respond. A proud person can be manipulated if you flatter him; so if Jesus showed he could be manipulated, Nicodemus would have known he was not from God.

Jesus did not respond to it He ignored it and began to answer Nicodemus' real but unspoken question. His comment about the "Son of Man" showed Nicodemus he knew something, a little at least. (Why was Ezekiel called "Son of Man"? The Sanhedrin had wanted to round up all copies of the book of Ezekiel and hide them away since the book contained material they preferred the public not have; but it was too popular so they could not suppress it.)

Nicodemus continues playing dumb. "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Some may think that was a sincere question; but I warn people against pride themselves if they are too confident they know things Nicodemus didn't. Jesus says more, and Nicodemus keeps pretending not to know what Jesus is talking about. "How can these things be?" Then Jesus cuts through Nicodemus' act and says, " Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" In other words, "Stop pretending not to know what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about and you know." You see if Jesus didn't know what he was talking about, Nicodemus wouldn't have wanted to talk about it since the cherubim were talked about only by a few among themselves.

It's tempting to want to believe we today know more than Nicodemus did; but do we? Why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know these things? Jesus then says that he knows what he's talking because he's seen them. Compare if you will to Ezekiel's experiences of being "caught up" and travelling through the air. Most Christians ignore the part in the Gospel of John that says those born of the Spirit can travel like the wind. They do not connect the dots with Ezekiel who was called Son of Man and who could travel so.

Jesus also goes on to mention the serpent and its significance. To most Christians this remains another mystery. Why would Jesus compare himself to a serpent being raised up? It's clearly connected to the reversal of the serpent being cast down in Genesis; but the question Christians need to ask themselves is how and why should the serpent be raised up?

The conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus ends abruptly. We are not told what Nicodemus had to say; but we learn later that Nicodemus defended him (John 7:50-51) and help bury Jesus (John 19:39-40). That tells me Nicodemus understood what Jesus told him that night and was convinced by it that Jesus was Messiah.

The conversation may seem strange to some, but I do think Nicodemus understood it. The passage becomes obscure if someone believes he already knows what born of the Spirit means before reading the passage and he also assumes Nicodemus couldn't have known. There were some Jewish leaders who knew how to enter the kingdom but refused according to Jesus. They also hid that information, preventing others from entering.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Typical Christian theology cannot explain that verse since many Christians do not think any of the Jews could know such things.

 

[Grailhunter]

I have studied astrology, and that gave me an advantage when reading a few sections of the Bible. I've also discussed astrology with an Orthodox Jew, and we agreed on how it can be used both unlawfully and lawfully.

Take the four cherubim for example. Someone who's studied astrology sees something almost immediately when a lion, a calf, a man and an eagle are mentioned. Another example is the order of the metals here:

Numbers 31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

Mercury or quicksilver is missing since it wasn't known to them; but the rest are lined up according to how astrologers line up the planets which rule metals: Sun, moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Counting the value of letters (gematria) is also a magical thing straight out of kaballah. Then there is the matter of the cherubim I mentioned above.

The Jews who had the highest level of understanding in this hidden knowledge never discussed it openly. It was passed on orally. They may hint at it however. Paul obviously had some knowledge of it -- you can see that in his writings at times, and he studied with Gamaliel. John certainly had studied it.

To Nicodemus now. The conversation starts off strangely. You noticed the odd break, but didn't investigate it enough. Nicodemus appears to pay Jesus a high compliment and Jesus appears to ignore it and start talking about something else entirely. What was going on? No learned rabbi would say what Nicodemus said and be sincere about it. Nicodemus is fishing because he's not sure who or what Jesus is. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." That makes no sense for anyone who knew what Moses said. Signs and wonders do not prove someone is from God. Moses warned about it. Jesus also disapproved of people craving signs and wonders.

I think Nicodemus was testing Jesus, to see if he was full of pride. He threw out this piece of flattery to see how Jesus would respond. A proud person can be manipulated if you flatter him; so if Jesus showed he could be manipulated, Nicodemus would have known he was not from God.

Jesus did not respond to it He ignored it and began to answer Nicodemus' real but unspoken question. His comment about the "Son of Man" showed Nicodemus he knew something, a little at least. (Why was Ezekiel called "Son of Man"? The Sanhedrin had wanted to round up all copies of the book of Ezekiel and hide them away since the book contained material they preferred the public not have; but it was too popular so they could not suppress it.)

Nicodemus continues playing dumb. "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Some may think that was a sincere question; but I warn people against pride themselves if they are too confident they know things Nicodemus didn't. Jesus says more, and Nicodemus keeps pretending not to know what Jesus is talking about. "How can these things be?" Then Jesus cuts through Nicodemus' act and says, " Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" In other words, "Stop pretending not to know what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about and you know." You see if Jesus didn't know what he was talking about, Nicodemus wouldn't have wanted to talk about it since the cherubim were talked about only by a few among themselves.

It's tempting to want to believe we today know more than Nicodemus did; but do we? Why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know these things? Jesus then says that he knows what he's talking because he's seen them. Compare if you will to Ezekiel's experiences of being "caught up" and travelling through the air. Most Christians ignore the part in the Gospel of John that says those born of the Spirit can travel like the wind. They do not connect the dots with Ezekiel who was called Son of Man and who could travel so.

Jesus also goes on to mention the serpent and its significance. To most Christians this remains another mystery. Why would Jesus compare himself to a serpent being raised up? It's clearly connected to the reversal of the serpent being cast down in Genesis; but the question Christians need to ask themselves is how and why should the serpent be raised up?

The conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus ends abruptly. We are not told what Nicodemus had to say; but we learn later that Nicodemus defended him (John 7:50-51) and help bury Jesus (John 19:39-40). That tells me Nicodemus understood what Jesus told him that night and was convinced by it that Jesus was Messiah.

The conversation may seem strange to some, but I do think Nicodemus understood it. The passage becomes obscure if someone believes he already knows what born of the Spirit means before reading the passage and he also assumes Nicodemus couldn't have known. There were some Jewish leaders who knew how to enter the kingdom but refused according to Jesus. They also hid that information, preventing others from entering.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Typical Christian theology cannot explain that verse since many Christians do not think any of the Jews could know such things.

I still think that this conversion was a few conversations grouped together, and we can go through John and find more of these.
On you point of Herod seeing the star, I concur to the extreme. During this period if anything is going on in the sky it is catching the attention of people and they, Pagan or Jew would attribute it to the divine. So it is a wonder the Magi did not show up at Christ's home with several hundred people.

 

[GodsGrace]

It was tedious work, but some years ago I compared the Matthew, Mark and Luke line by line in the Greek. From the textual differences of the parallel passages, I reached the conclusion that parts of Mark had been taken and translated into Hebrew and that the version we have today was the result of it being translated back into Greek.


The point that bothers with with that explanation is why couldn't Herod see it after being told about it?

I'm not sure "witch" is what is meant. The Hebrew means mutterer or whisperer, probably meaning someone who whispered spells or curses. I doubt whatever was meant in the Old Testament relates to the European concept of witchcraft. There had been a witchcraft craze in Europe. King James seemed obsessed with the subject.

Few people have actually looked into the topic of magic. I would say there are lawful uses of certain principles and there are unlawful uses. The unlawful uses involve violating the free will of others.


Kaballah can be said to be a form of magic. Indeed most modern magic is based on it indirectly. I've studied kaballah; and some parts of the Bible make little sense without some knowledge of kaballah. John's Revelation is full of concepts related to kaballah.

Then, if they were that interested, why would they vanish from the storyline?

I am going to propose that they do not leave the storyline at all, but that is another story.

I'm not sure they were pagans. Don't forget Jesus said he had other sheep in other folds.


The census idea can be related to the Old Testament counting of the people. Remember what happened when David decided to count the people without following proper procedure?

Hi G,,,
Just to let you know that I didn't post any of the above....
mistake!

 

[GodsGrace]

I have studied astrology, and that gave me an advantage when reading a few sections of the Bible. I've also discussed astrology with an Orthodox Jew, and we agreed on how it can be used both unlawfully and lawfully.

Take the four cherubim for example. Someone who's studied astrology sees something almost immediately when a lion, a calf, a man and an eagle are mentioned. Another example is the order of the metals here:

Numbers 31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

Mercury or quicksilver is missing since it wasn't known to them; but the rest are lined up according to how astrologers line up the planets which rule metals: Sun, moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Counting the value of letters (gematria) is also a magical thing straight out of kaballah. Then there is the matter of the cherubim I mentioned above.

The Jews who had the highest level of understanding in this hidden knowledge never discussed it openly. It was passed on orally. They may hint at it however. Paul obviously had some knowledge of it -- you can see that in his writings at times, and he studied with Gamaliel. John certainly had studied it.

To Nicodemus now. The conversation starts off strangely. You noticed the odd break, but didn't investigate it enough. Nicodemus appears to pay Jesus a high compliment and Jesus appears to ignore it and start talking about something else entirely. What was going on? No learned rabbi would say what Nicodemus said and be sincere about it. Nicodemus is fishing because he's not sure who or what Jesus is. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." That makes no sense for anyone who knew what Moses said. Signs and wonders do not prove someone is from God. Moses warned about it. Jesus also disapproved of people craving signs and wonders.

I think Nicodemus was testing Jesus, to see if he was full of pride. He threw out this piece of flattery to see how Jesus would respond. A proud person can be manipulated if you flatter him; so if Jesus showed he could be manipulated, Nicodemus would have known he was not from God.

Jesus did not respond to it He ignored it and began to answer Nicodemus' real but unspoken question. His comment about the "Son of Man" showed Nicodemus he knew something, a little at least. (Why was Ezekiel called "Son of Man"? The Sanhedrin had wanted to round up all copies of the book of Ezekiel and hide them away since the book contained material they preferred the public not have; but it was too popular so they could not suppress it.)

Nicodemus continues playing dumb. "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Some may think that was a sincere question; but I warn people against pride themselves if they are too confident they know things Nicodemus didn't. Jesus says more, and Nicodemus keeps pretending not to know what Jesus is talking about. "How can these things be?" Then Jesus cuts through Nicodemus' act and says, " Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" In other words, "Stop pretending not to know what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about and you know." You see if Jesus didn't know what he was talking about, Nicodemus wouldn't have wanted to talk about it since the cherubim were talked about only by a few among themselves.

It's tempting to want to believe we today know more than Nicodemus did; but do we? Why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know these things? Jesus then says that he knows what he's talking because he's seen them. Compare if you will to Ezekiel's experiences of being "caught up" and travelling through the air. Most Christians ignore the part in the Gospel of John that says those born of the Spirit can travel like the wind. They do not connect the dots with Ezekiel who was called Son of Man and who could travel so.

Jesus also goes on to mention the serpent and its significance. To most Christians this remains another mystery. Why would Jesus compare himself to a serpent being raised up? It's clearly connected to the reversal of the serpent being cast down in Genesis; but the question Christians need to ask themselves is how and why should the serpent be raised up?

The conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus ends abruptly. We are not told what Nicodemus had to say; but we learn later that Nicodemus defended him (John 7:50-51) and help bury Jesus (John 19:39-40). That tells me Nicodemus understood what Jesus told him that night and was convinced by it that Jesus was Messiah.

The conversation may seem strange to some, but I do think Nicodemus understood it. The passage becomes obscure if someone believes he already knows what born of the Spirit means before reading the passage and he also assumes Nicodemus couldn't have known. There were some Jewish leaders who knew how to enter the kingdom but refused according to Jesus. They also hid that information, preventing others from entering.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Typical Christian theology cannot explain that verse since many Christians do not think any of the Jews could know such things.

I agree with post no. 536

I've never studied this verse so deeply and the reason why I wouldn't is precisely because we can't be certain of the exact wording of the conversation or even of the situation at hand.
John is making a point....
I do believe this is all we can know for sure.

 

[Marymog]

If only I had a $ for every time you have used that same old worn out argument of yours.

You would be rich.....

I guess the question you have to ask yourself BG: Who has more credibility? The men who walked and talked with the Apostles or Calvin and Luther?

Who do you choose BG?

Curious Mary

PS....that " old worn out argument" has been true for 2,000 years.

 

[Marymog]

I just quoted scripture, hopefully the Spirit will reveal the truth?

Using your theory: If the Spirit reveals something different to me then He does to you which one of us was revealed "the truth"?

Curious Mary