The UNholiness of the Bible

[Ssel]

Wow, I hope it isn't too much of a curse for me to say so, but you guys would seriously do yourselves a favor by listening to notblindedbytheblite

 

I don't agree 100% with all she says, but she is certainly revealing a far more important aspect of the book than all of the arguing about possible contratictions or beliefs in fairytale versions.

 

vigile, there are far more pratical concerns than what NBBTB has pointed out. She has an interest in those inner spiritual concerns. You are not concerned about the "inner spirit" things. But the social laws being formed in this nation and where they lead should be of some interest. If you have children, you probably have interest in their ability to cope and be as free as possible. The "Staff of Moses" metaphorical concerns would directly address these and many other things.

 

But back to the topic at hand..

 

----------------------

 

One way to express the concept of a holy law is with the simple game of tic-tac-toe(TTT).

 

In the TTT, there are only 3 beginning spots to choose from – center, edge, or side. Which edge or side is irrelevant. If a holy law is presented as to where to start the game, then the law must represent the position which will ALWAYS be the best starting point. It is not required that the beginning point will guarantee a win, only that it will yield the best opportunity available.

 

To reveal which position is the best to begin the game, each potential scenario must be examined. This is the “considerate of all things” aspect for the law.

 

Because the game is pretty simple, the best place to start is easy to determine. Very technically speaking, the process of examining the game to find the holy starting position, is what is called “praying” when the game is the game of life rather than merely a limited simple game. The effort to always find the most holy position to move to and the effort to always take the most holy move is called keeping a “holy spirit” when referring to the game of life.

 

By maintaining that “holy spirit” in playing the game (any game), one is given the highest probability of winning.

 

Which is the holy law regarding the beginning position of TTT?

[Saviourmachine]

Which is the holy law regarding the beginning position of TTT?

Most times when I win TTT it's when I start in a corner. The opponent takes the center, and subsequently I place my sign in the opposite corner. Now the opponent most often does remember that sides have to be avoided and does also place his/her sign in a corner. And is lost.

 

Starting in the centre does maybe have the most sequences to a win, but most often my opponents know that they have to place their sign in a corner subsequently. And after that it's quite straightforward...

 

That's why for example the Norwalder variant (1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6) or the Benko gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5) in chess can be a "holy law". Humans...

[Ssel]

..Now the opponent most often does remember ..

Ha.. leave it to you, SM to jump ahead of me.

 

You have pointed out something concerning holiness that I wasn't going to mention yet.

 

Let's say that a man is a mathematician or a logician and studies the game carefully. He works out every mathematical probability of each move. After doing this, he decides that playing the center first is ALWAYS the best first move. He is very confident because he has calculated every possibility.

 

He tells his young son one day to ALWAYS start with the center in order to ensure that you have the best chance of winning. He has come to yield a small "holy law" concerning the game and passed it on to his son. The young boy asks why the center? The father can't explain all of the calculations that he went through so he says, "Take my word for it, I have consulted the highest authority on this issue". The father is referring to the detailed mathematics and logic but doesn't tell his son this.

 

The young boy tries what his father has recommended with his younger sister. But as it turns out, the younger sister accidently played some good moves and the boy didn't follow up properly so as to ensure his victory. The boy begins to wonder if dear ole Dad really knew what he was talking about.

 

The son decides to try something different. He begins with a different position than what Dad recommended and ends up winning against his young sister. The father hears of this and just shakes his head thinking, "Oh well, the boy will just have to learn the hard way." The son plays again with the sister and wins again not playing from the center. Now the boy is certain that Dad doesn't really know as much as he implied. The son plays again and again and discovers several ways to beat his sister at the game but never plays the center first.

 

Dad becomes curious as to why this is happening. He watches them play for a few games and discovers that his young daughter is always playing the same positions regardless of where the boy starts and because of this, the boy found a better play to begin the game with his sister. - Down goes the mathematician.

 

The father tries to explain that the boy is only winning because of the way his sister is playing and that in the real world such would not be the right thing to do. But of course, it is too late for the boy to again accept that "father knows best". At school the boy finds another friend to play the game. He notices that his friend tends to always prefer certain moves too. So, he compensates and wins most of the time, but has yet to bother playing from the center. The young boy now knows that he knows the real trick to the game. He knows to watch your opponent and respond accordingly.

 

What has happened is that the wise father studying reality, came up with what he was certain was "the voice of God". He knew that he had every possibility covered and had to be right. And thus professed a "holy law".

 

But the holy law only provided for the best opportunity, not any guarantee. This caused the boy to search further after a loss or 2. The boy happened to notice something that the father had not considered in his holy law. He noticed that watching the other player's faults was the way to victory. The father had assumed the worse case of the opponent being equally wise.

 

The son then updates the father's holy law. The son proclaims, "the holy place to begin the game is where your opponent doesn't compensate." A new holy law is born.

 

But then the sister grows up a bit and asks where to begin if you don't really know your opponent. The boy simply replies that you watch a few times. The father says well, I always start in the center regardless.

 

The young girl decides that the real holy law must read, "Until you can identify a weakness in your opponent, always start in the center." And a even newer "holy law" is born.

 

Three generations of holy prophets, each analyzing the same reality and making their best guess as to the most perfect law to obey. Each teaches the next generation of their wisdom as holiness. Each questions the one prior when they don't instantly win. The law becomes more perfected with each generation of prophet. But without the first, would the last ever have even tried or had anything to build from?

 

Should the father be condemned or ignored for not being as perfect as he had thought?

Even the last prophet must examine the true wisdom of the first to ensure a greater perfection.

[SkepticOfBible]

The bible presents itself as a book of fact and history. The bible wants it to be read as a historical document until it specifically says that the following part is a metaphor(eg the parables of Jesus).

 

Emm.. No. Historical fact is not varied by a metaphorical recording method.The parables merely testify that such things are used during that era. But who before Jesus actually said "Btw, this is a parable." He explained that speaking in such a way had a purpose. He explained that it was intentional that some not understand. Consider that you might be that "some".

 

Is the whole of the bible is written from a metaphorical point of view?

 

Yes it is true that the parable methodology was first used by the character of Jesus, but there is any indication in the OT that the intent of the entire OT writings was meant to be allegorical.

 

The primitive hebrew writer recorded the world as he knew it. I mean you can clearly see that books are pretty much written as propaganda and meant to promote a cultural and religious idealogy. The authors of the OT thought that they were blessed ones, and from their point of view, they were writing it on behalf of Jehovah. This is a very similar approach that Hindus, Greeks and Arabs took when they were writing their religious text.

 

If you do want to read it metaphorical, then you are deciding it on your own, and hence putting it under a subjective analysis.

And if you pursue intellectual debate about the historical events that are more than obviously ridicules on the surface, then you are deciding to do so on your own, and hence putting it under no intelligent analysis at all.

 

So are you saying that a Exodus is a historical event, and the fantastical claims such as the plagues of Egypt and parting of the sea are just ridiculas and myth? Could you point me to some archealogical evidence for the exodus, cause as far as I know both Christians and secular historians acknowledge that there is very little evidence for events that took place in exodus. The christian historian however tend to use "arguement from Silence" card, whereby they say the absence of evidence doesn't imply the event never took place (which is quite a lame excuse)

 

Since the inception of the bible and untill the last centuary, the majority of it's followers treated as a historical fact of life. That sort of thinking still exist amongst many christians (specifically YEC) who maintain that the Flood, Genesis account and story of Eden was a historic event, and not a metaphorical one.

And after talking to many of these people it hasn't occurred to you that maybe these weren't the brightest lights on the Christmas tree? The largest number in every group are the "fundamentalists".

Well the the fundamentalist and extremist christian are definately a minority, but they are usually the most vocal. Otherwise if they were in a majority then you would have conditions that are similar to Saudi Arabia.

 

This is simply a fact of reality and necessity. If you can't hear from the top of the mountain of believers, then your hearing distortion. When you do get to hear from the top of such a mountain, you hear a speech intended for the masses and tailored to fit a common denominator. Your assuming that because no leader came out in public and stated something, that the leader revealed all he knew and there was no more.

 

So are you saying that mainstream christianity has got something wrong in their approach towards christianity and that you have the correct one?

 

So, I explain it as Moses helping to free the Israelites with God. And you explain it as God freeing the Israelites with Moses and “weapons of mass destruction”.

 

No, you explained in a completely different manner.

 

The "shadow of death" was covering the land of Egypt and the Israelites feared that they too would die. They asked Moses of how to be saved from this. Moses told them to paint a mark above their doorway with the blood of a lamb.

 

To the casual reader this is merely a ritual that is supposed to have some magical hocus pocus to it. But to the informed reader, this has said:

"Moses told the Israelites to display a sign of being an innocent victim so as to avoid the anger and vengenge that was spreading throughout the people of Egypt."

 

All I did was to points some narrative errors and the some important details that omitted on your part. I am treated it just like I would treat a fictional book or mythological book. So first let me address the narrative issues

 

Why didn’t I see the words “weapons of mass destruction” in all you quoted from the Bible? It said nothing about “weapons of mass destruction”. Where did you get “weapons of mass destruction”? Show me where it says “weapons of mass destruction” in the Bible. Obviously you have never read the Bible or you would know that it never mentions anything about “weapons of mass destruction”.

Obviously, to you, when you said “weapons of mass destruction”, you were changing the words to emphasis a point but not really changing the concept. Why is it that only you are allowed this privilege?

 

Ok fine, I was just trying to bring in a little dark humor. It's called characterisation But never the less, in the story there was a event which took place on a mass scale. So here is a statement which lines up more with what the bible says.

 

"When Jehovah came down and killed Egypt's First Born and the first born animals."

 

13And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

You think that this has absolutely nothing to do with what I had explained?

 

Yes, because the text says nothing about the Isrealities begging Moses as to how save them from the Shadow of Death. The text clearly indicates that that Isrealites were safe from the plagues that Jehovah will send to Egypt.

 

As I said, the informed reader, not you, sees why it is that God passes over the houses displaying the blood of a lamb?

 

Well from the text it is quite clear why Jehovah passes over the house.

 

It was all part of God's masterplan to harden the heart of the pharoah. There was nothing for the Isrealites to fear since God had already told them through Moses that they will be spared

You imagine that the entire gathering of Israelites were just merrily skipping along while everyone around them was falling over dead that night because Moses said that God said that they had nothing to fear?

You are accepting the casual reader Hocus Pocus part.

 

Well when did I say that I believed that the events describes in the verses are factual.

 

But it is unreasonable to believe that the population of Israelites were not concerned for their lives.

 

Why should they fear when Jehovah told them precisely what he will do when he comes down in the form of the plague?

 

It is unreasonable to believe that the Israelites were not asking Moses what to do about the upcoming calamity. It is also unreasonable to believe that the first born of everyone in the land was merely falling over dead in the middle of the night.

 

The biblical text says otherwise. That is my only source of information for this story.

 

So what was really happening that could be told in such a manner but make sense?

 

Once again I am not sure what is your position on the exodus events. Do you consider it historical?

 

The entire formula for freeing the Israelites is far more complicated than that little bit I told you. You can not take a single bit of the metaphoric translation and insert only that bit in with all of the superficial, magical wording and make much sense. It is like merely changing a few Chinese words into English and expecting a sentence to become clear

 

If you’re going to argue about the metaphorical understandings, then you have a lot of catching up to do before you even begin.

........

To find metaphor, you have to envision what might have been really going on which had nothing to do with any supernatural anything. Remove the magic but leave the abstract events..

 

So finally you have given us your methology. Let me make certain things clear. I have no problems that you approach the bible as "a book that can "reveal" deeper spirituality if read in the proper way". It is perfectly valid.

I do have problem when you start to say that "this is the only methology that should be used and my interpretation is infallible and everybody should accept it as the ultimate truth", which I know you are not doing. YET

As someone pointed out that not everybody will come out with the same conclusion because the nature of the methology is a very subjective one.

 

7But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

And you think that God was giving commands to the dogs at a time like this?

 

I don't believe that Jehovah exists.

 

Isn’t it still common to refer to certain types of people as “dogs”?

So which people is the text refering to? The Egyptians and Isrealites are clearly identified

 

Doesn’t it make more sense that this verse is referring to people than merely insignificant dogs?

Or it could just be literal device to spice up the event.

 

The point of killing innocent children and the animals, was to show that he was powerful than Ramesses and the God's of Egypt, and it was all part of masterplan to demonstrate the greatness of the Bible god.

Why is it okay for you to freely inject your supposition of why God was doing something but others “have no proof”?

 

I didn't inject any of my supposition

 

Exodus 7:5

And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it."

 

Exodus 12:12

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

 

The last plague of egypt was supposed to show the Jehovah was more powerful than the god's of egypt, specifically the Egyptian god of Life.

 

As far no 2 goes, there were many times in the bible I could think of better way to deal with a situation, if I was a all powerfull God.

 

Since being an all powerful God is beyond your imagination.

 

So now you know the limits of my imagination. MMmm, I'll just assume that you are just being plain angry here

 

Try thinking about what you would do if you were one of millions of people who worshipped gods and Pharaohs but you needed to free some of them from the tyranny.

 

So do you want to me to assume the role of Moses or Jehovah?

 

I would go ahead and say that nothing of the bible has come from God, and that it is completely 100% man made...

nothing of the bible has come from which God?

Err the bible god whose name is Jehovah. To be precise, I find no evidence of any supernatural inteference in the writing of the bible

 

Gee I don't know, but when I watch a movie I don't look for mundane details such as the religious inclination of a fictious character, unless that is the focus of the movie. Hollywood nowadays hardly bring religion at all in it's movie, and even if they bring religion in, it's usually involves the christian faith rather than a Jewish one.

 

Yes, you don’t.

 

Incidently I am in the business of movie making, so I do know what I am talking about, and ironically I am working for a studio which primarily makes movies for the christian market.

 

And yes, the films, display how negative and bad Christianity is but nothing about how all of these OT events and their laws, still used today, are even worse.

..........

while they produce 100s of major movies showing how evil and useless Christianity is?

 

Prove your above assertion. You can start giving me the list of the 100 blockbuster movies which shows christianity or christians priest in a bad light.

 

It is true that Hollywood is guilty of using stereotypes, but stereotypes change over time.

 

I haven't seen that any movies which shows the christian priest as the main villian or christianity as a bad influence, but neither am I saying that such a type of movie has never been made. It is certainly never been a trend though.

 

On the contrary christianity is shown as a positive role in people's life(eg Sister Act), and in stories which shows the battle between Good vs Bad where the supernatural is involved, christianity and the christian god is associatd with the good(Constantine, Exorcist,Chronicles of Narnia, Devil's Advocate, Omen Quadrology).

 

Why would the Jewish unholy laws and obvious bloody history and obvious blood current events all be left out

If it was all fiction, then certainly it would be more entertaining to display the horrific magical events of the OT. Maybe how the evil Rabbi tried to slaughter the children of some village so as to be proclaimed a high prophet. But you never, ever see such scenarios

 

 

Now you are accusing Hollywood because they don't usually make kinds of movies. I think this is absurd, because this is like me saying "That Hollywood should make more movies relating to Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Light, rather than always focusing only on christmas".

 

The reason is pretty obvious, because Hollywood movies are primarly targeted at the current American market(which is primarly Christian). Hollywood will make movies where people can relate to them more.

 

Why do you think that they show a christian american wedding whenever a marriage takes place?Because that's how most American's get married that way.

 

Most likely in Isreal there might be a movie about a evil Rabbi who wants to slaughter children to be proclaimed a high prophet, but once again it's a very cultural theme.

 

Especially since Christianity at least proclaims that such things bad.

 

Do you mean that NT declares that OT wars was unjust?

 

Only Christian priests are bad, never a Rabbi. -Hmmm.

 

Ever heard of the movie "Passion of the Christ". Who were the main villians there? Wasn't it the Rabbis?

 

The Bible stories are relevant to events today because they are about manipulation of peoples feelings and beliefs. They are being used TODAY. Understand them, or fall victim to them. Trying to proclaim them as mere myth only makes them stronger.

 

Please explain me the relevance of sacrifices your virgin daughter to Jehovah. What do I learn from that? That such values should be admired. The character who did this is revered as a faithful by both the NT and OT.

 

And what can I learn from a story where a the hero takes out the foreskin of 200 men just so that he can marry a princess?

 

What can I learn from a character who claims to be the creator, when says that innocent children should be killed, just because they belong to the "wrong" set of parents

[Ssel]

Is the whole of the bible is written from a metaphorical point of view?

The OT is very largely metaphorocal. The NT is a little less so.

The primitive hebrew writer recorded the world as he knew it. I mean you can clearly see that books are pretty much written as propaganda and meant to promote a cultural and religious idealogy.

I object a little to your use of the word "primitive". Many of the great philosophers throughout the world viewed the universe as a living being. Many still do, it is one accurate view. Science has always viewed it as an inanimate object. Which way it is viewed doesn't really matter that much as long as it is attended to. Science "worships" reality by respecting it as something to be properly attended to or suffer the consequences. Religions worship the living universe in the same way. They both say "Listen to what we are telling you or suffer."

So are you saying that a Exodus is a historical event, and the fantastical claims such as the plagues of Egypt and parting of the sea are just ridiculas and myth? Could you point me to some archealogical evidence for the exodus,

There are several reasons why they can't find hard evidence.

 

1) The events being recorded in metaphorical format actually took place in a more gradual manner. The writings would make it seem as though things took place literally over night. A "night" is a period of "darkness" and "confusion" in society. Reading the OT is like watching a time lapse film. Things become more obvious in the film than they were in real time.

 

2) Did you really expect to find a stone hieroglyphic tablet saying "Yeah, that damn Moses kicked my butt again today." Much of what was taking place was between political rivals. The general population had no idea what was happening or why. A generation fell into turmoil as confusion set in much like the 1970's in the US. Who was there to record exactly what the reasoning was - the ones losing the battle never wanting to accept that the God of Moses really had anything to do with it?

 

3) Just like today, much of the formulae being used were all about social manipulation and thus secretive in nature. The formulae of the Egyptians were recorded in their hieroglyphic form. The formulae of the Israelite was recorded in the Hebrew form. You should expect two totally different stories because each was attempting to record events using their own understanding which was sharply different. How did the Greeks and Romans describe their gradual decay into darkness?

 

How did the Greeks and Romans record their gradual decay into the dark ages? Do you look fora recording saying "One day it seemed to get all dark" ?

 

Moses discribes the Egyptian nation, at one point as the "Red Sea" and that it became divided. This comes from the understanding of what they were really talking about. The "Red Sea" is the sea of peoples issues at a time when they are basically angry. Anger and "hardness of the heart" are a part of the formulae being used at the time. The effect of such general emotionalism throughout the land causes the next generation to be spiritually lost and not fruitful - dead.

 

 

Well the the fundamentalist and extremist christian are definately a minority, but they are usually the most vocal. Otherwise if they were in a majority then you would have conditions that are similar to Saudi Arabia.

A fundy and an extremist are very different things. But granted, if mere fundamentalist truly controlled the USA, then I would expect a Puritan type of age to set in.

 

This is simply a fact of reality and necessity. If you can't hear from the top of the mountain of believers, then your hearing distortion. When you do get to hear from the top of such a mountain, you hear a speech intended for the masses and tailored to fit a common denominator. Your assuming that because no leader came out in public and stated something, that the leader revealed all he knew and there was no more.

 

So are you saying that mainstream christianity has got something wrong in their approach towards christianity and that you have the correct one?

I'm saying that leaders of religions and governments do not attempt to explain what they know and use. If you want to understand a leader of anything, you generally have to figure it out on your own or attend a specialized school on the subject.

 

All I did was to points some narrative errors and the some important details that omitted on your part. I am treated it just like I would treat a fictional book or mythological book. So first let me address the narrative issues

But you treated it just like a fundamentalist. You can not take a small bit of metaphorical translation and slip it between the lines of literal writings.

 

 

"When Jehovah came down and killed Egypt's First Born and the first born animals."

"When the real way things work caused the death of the next generation throughout Egypt."

Well from the text it is quite clear why Jehovah passes over the house.

But you see it as "God needed to be told which houses were Israelite and had to see lambs blood to know the difference". Does that really make sense to you? The metaphorical understanding removes all of those non-sense events and shows the rational explanation with no magic involved.

[Ssel]

I do have problem when you start to say that "this is the only methology that should be used and my interpretation is infallible and everybody should accept it as the ultimate truth", which I know you are not doing. YET

And this expectation and presumption is what makes all men blind. By assuming that a man is one of those or one of these, then your emotions tell you that he says things that he isn't saying. They relay attitude and probable interpretations to your mind that are not there. You then attack or defend when there was no need. He then must defend because you attacked. A war is started, all from presumption. This is exactly related to the Staff of Moses. I have been on here for months now and have said nothing even close to what you stated, but you still anticipate it. You see only what your emotions let you see – that is a part of the formulae in the Bible.

 

The last plague of egypt was supposed to show the Jehovah was more powerful than the god's of egypt, specifically the Egyptian god of Life.

Your replacing "I am going to do this" with the supposition that "The purpose I am going to do is is to show that I can"

 

So now you know the limits of my imagination. MMmm, I'll just assume that you are just being plain angry here

Once again, your presumptions show emotion that isn't there. No man can imagine the situation that an all-mighty being is in when trying to deal with a world. My statement had absolutely nothing to do with anger or emotion. Think of the number of times you have assumed emotion and intent, not only of me but of the God of the Bible when such emotion nor intent had anything to do with either.

 

Prove your above assertion. You can start giving me the list of the 100 blockbuster movies which shows christianity or christians priest in a bad light.

You have interesting timing for saying "prove your assertion". Watch those movies yourself.

It is true that Hollywood is guilty of using stereotypes, but stereotypes change over time.

 

I haven't seen that any movies which shows the christian priest as the main villian or christianity as a bad influence, but neither am I saying that such a type of movie has never been made. It is certainly never been a trend though.

You haven't looked for it. Stick to films made in the past 25 years which is at least 10 times more than all before that time combined. Make an honest observation and polling for yourself. Once you begin to see, you will see far more than you ever suspected. Because you haven't looked, your mind tells you that it isn't there. Films are about affecting your mind without you suspecting, same as all commercials, and all propaganda.

[Ssel]

From the metaphorical interpretation;

 

Moses explained to the Pharaoh that Moses' understanding of Reality was superior to the general understanding of the Egyptians. This is similar to Science explaining that their understanding is superior to that of witches. The serpent swallowing the other serpents is the story of him explaining to Pharaoh. Note that any time you see an absurd event, this is when to look for metaphor. Serpents don't swallow other serpents on command, so look for metaphor - what is a "serpent" and what is a "serpent swallowing another?"

 

The Egyptians recorded their history as an evil that beset the land with thier gods at war with each other. Moses recorded the same history as his God of all of Reality causing the gods of Egypt to war with each other. He basically demonstrated to the Pharaoh that he could bring about plagues that the Egyptian magi could not handle and if the Pharaoh would not free the Israelites, then Moses would demonstrate the superior nature of his understanding the hard way.

 

The power of the Staff of Moses was the power to cause anger. The Staff of Moses (the understanding of his formula) can cause blacks to become angry with whites, can cause women to become angry with men, can cause wife to become angry with husband, and can cause a generation of people to become angry with Christians. It causes the "waters" (the issues) to run as "blood" (serious heart felt issues). It causes passions to create destructive plagues.

 

In reverse, it can cause sympathy - for the Israelites (and the Jews). This is the donations that the Egyptian people were said to be giving the Israelites.

 

Jesus did not want to use such a weapon to free the Jewry from the Romans. The Jews had been using the formula in lesser ways and created anger throughout their own people. "Do not take the name (the formula) of our God in vain (vanity - lesser purposes)." Jesus preferred using a love of peace to conquer their enemy. "The truth will set you free". Jesus saw the Staff of Moses as true, but unwise.

 

When Jesus' formula of extreme resistance to conflict and the willingness to deeply love, is used, the Staff of Moses loses its power to create anger. In modern times, medicines have become a part of the formula. Destruction is easier to cause than union. Thus man has to learn the hard way to stop playing with destructive weapons if he doesn't want to suffer from his own formulae.

 

The "seven deadly sins" are a part of the formula of the Staff of Moses. Avoiding them prevents the formula from working.

 

But in modern times, there is more to the story, it isn't just about freeing slaves or oppressed people.

[Levi]

Holiness is: Having a Cleansed Heart before God to walk upright in the light of his truth and mercy through his son, being ever transformed and less conformed to be more and more like Christ Jesus.

 

Thou shalt not Murder is also commited within the heart.

It is written:

 

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,

fornications, murders.

Mark 7:21

 

Jesus confirmed this...

 

if a man shall look upon a woman lustfully, he has commited the sin of adultery.

...it is written

Adultery in the Heart..

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.'

28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

 

what to do?

 

30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

 

 

Everything we do therefore has to do with the STATE of our Hearts. Without Moral boundaries has no limit to commiting any of these sins the bible mentions - is athiesm at its best.

it is pointless to mension what the bible has said when people have turned away from it.

it is pointless to discuss even the fruitful virtues of abstaining from such temptations such as

' thou shall not kill' - we gain more than we commit.

 

For out of the heart man is

[Poonis]

30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

 

 

Levi,

 

I would probably be right by saying you recognize yourself as a sinner (as confessing sins is a mantra of Christianity). Would I also be right to say you are missing your right hand? If not, why not?

[Ssel]

..it is pointless ..

Levi,

Most humbly, in the name of Jesus, without presumption or fear of misunderstanding from others, to me answer only these 5 questions;

 

1) Exactly when should thou cease thy praying?

2) If not for the fallen and falling, then for whom should thy pray?

3) Did Jesus ever proclaim He shall forever be unique having none unto His like such that it shall be for He alone that the dead shall rise?

4) Are you pharosees such as to hold the law only unto thyself and only for thy gain?

5) When is the time for thee to judge and condemn the dead of heart?

 

Holiness is: Having a Cleansed Heart before God to walk upright in the light of his truth ..

Using this definition requires the definition of God to be known and settled. Why do you speak only in words which the listener has no understanding but to proclaim all you say to be meaningless?

[SkepticOfBible]

I do have problem when you start to say that "this is the only methology that should be used and my interpretation is infallible and everybody should accept it as the ultimate truth", which I know you are not doing. YET

And this expectation and presumption is what makes all men blind. By assuming that a man is one of those or one of these, then your emotions tell you that he says things that he isn't saying. They relay attitude and probable interpretations to your mind that are not there. You then attack or defend when there was no need. He then must defend because you attacked. A war is started, all from presumption. This is exactly related to the Staff of Moses. I have been on here for months now and have said nothing even close to what you stated, but you still anticipate it. You see only what your emotions let you see – that is a part of the formulae in the Bible.

Ye, intitially it sounded like that , but I see you do not pursue that line.

 

So now you know the limits of my imagination. MMmm, I'll just assume that you are just being plain angry here

Once again, your presumptions show emotion that isn't there. No man can imagine the situation that an all-mighty being is in when trying to deal with a world.

No, I think it is possible to imagine being a all-mighty being, because at the end worshippers empathise with the decision of the Christian God and then they worship in amazement at the perfect solution for the problems at hand

 

Men have always imagined how what they will do if they were a divine being. The manifestation of that imagination is the bible itself. And also other holy books.

 

At the end, whoever wrote the Exodus had to imagine himself in a position of a all powerful god before he could write the story

 

 

Prove your above assertion. You can start giving me the list of the 100 blockbuster movies which shows christianity or christians priest in a bad light.

You have interesting timing for saying "prove your assertion". Watch those movies yourself.

 

Like the blockbusters of IMDB.com. Half of them aren't even related to christianity at all

 

It is true that Hollywood is guilty of using stereotypes, but stereotypes change over time.

 

I haven't seen that any movies which shows the christian priest as the main villian or christianity as a bad influence, but neither am I saying that such a type of movie has never been made. It is certainly never been a trend though.

You haven't looked for it. Stick to films made in the past 25 years which is at least 10 times more than all before that time combined. Make an honest observation and polling for yourself.

 

Well I have, and gave you list of movies which goes contrary to your claim

 

Once you begin to see, you will see far more than you ever suspected. Because you haven't looked, your mind tells you that it isn't there. Films are about affecting your mind without you suspecting, same as all commercials, and all propaganda.

 

That will be true of average movie maker, but for me it's different because I observe far more things than the average person, because at the end of the day I am doing the same thing as part of my livelyhood.

 

If you give a me list of specific anti christian movies, sure I'll take a look at it.

[Ssel]

Ye, intitially it sounded like that , but I see you do not pursue that line.

You heard it like that.

 

No, I think it is possible to imagine being a all-mighty being, because at the end worshippers empathise with the decision of the Christian God and then they worship in amazement at the perfect solution for the problems at hand

 

Men have always imagined how what they will do if they were a divine being. The manifestation of that imagination is the bible itself. And also other holy books.

 

At the end, whoever wrote the Exodus had to imagine himself in a position of a all powerful god before he could write the story

I can't understand much of what you said here, but as far as men imagining of being an all-mighty being; a child can image being a president. But it is a child’s vision of what a president really is, thus he has not really imagined being a President. He has only imagined being what he thought a president must be like.

 

A man can not have a reasonable concept of what it is to be an all-mighty God and thus can not imagine it except as a child imagining with serious error. You used your imagination to proclaim that you would have done things differently if you were the all-mighty one. I still say that you have only a childish concept of what that would actually be like. Same would be true for almost anyone.

 

The writers of the Bible did not reflect any sign of them imagining themselves being God. They reported what they deduced of God and what they saw as "from" and "of" God.

 

If a scientist reports on the behavior of an atom, are you proclaiming that he must have imaged himself being an atom else he could not tell how the atom did all of those things?

 

 

Like the blockbusters of IMDB.com. Half of them aren't even related to christianity at all...

It is true that Hollywood is guilty of using stereotypes, but stereotypes change over time.

I haven't seen that any movies which shows the christian priest as the main villian or christianity as a bad influence, ..

You haven't looked for it. Stick to films made in the past 25 years which is at least 10 times more than all before that time combined. Make an honest observation and polling for yourself.

Well I have, and gave you list of movies which goes contrary to your claim

In one day, you watched an honest polling of films to see if the arch villain was "white-male or Christian priest" and you compared the number of those with the number of films where the arch villain was "jewish or Rabbi"? DAMN your quick.

That will be true of average movie maker, but for me it's different because I observe far more things than the average person..

---

If you give a me list of specific anti christian movies, sure I'll take a look at it.

---

That will be true of average movie maker, but for me it's different because I observe far more things than the average person, ...

I have been a victim of your observation skills. I suspect you need to specifically look for what I said and make an honest comparison. Just for an example (not part of a list) “The Body” and the entire “Prophecy” series. If I give you a list (which is not something I keep anyway nor would be able to remember) then it wouldn't be an honest random polling, now would it? I know people in the film industry too. They didn't notice it either until I pointed it out and they looked for themselves. They were astonished. Walt Disney is about the only exception to the film makers and they suffer dearly for not going along.

 

I don't want to use this thread to argue about prejudice in media and films. We have carried it far enough. The same with metaphorical interpretations.

[Ssel]

To get things back on course here..

 

..Now the opponent most often does remember ..

Ha.. leave it to you, SM to jump ahead of me.

 

You have pointed out something concerning holiness that I wasn't going to mention yet.

 

Let's say that a man is a mathematician or a logician and studies the game carefully. He works out every mathematical probability of each move. After doing this, he decides that playing the center first is ALWAYS the best first move. He is very confident because he has calculated every possibility.

 

He tells his young son one day to ALWAYS start with the center in order to ensure that you have the best chance of winning. He has come to yield a small "holy law" concerning the game and passed it on to his son. The young boy asks why the center? The father can't explain all of the calculations that he went through so he says, "Take my word for it, I have consulted the highest authority on this issue". The father is referring to the detailed mathematics and logic but doesn't tell his son this.

 

The young boy tries what his father has recommended with his younger sister. But as it turns out, the younger sister accidently played some good moves and the boy didn't follow up properly so as to ensure his victory. The boy begins to wonder if dear ole Dad really knew what he was talking about.

 

The son decides to try something different. He begins with a different position than what Dad recommended and ends up winning against his young sister. The father hears of this and just shakes his head thinking, "Oh well, the boy will just have to learn the hard way." The son plays again with the sister and wins again not playing from the center. Now the boy is certain that Dad doesn't really know as much as he implied. The son plays again and again and discovers several ways to beat his sister at the game but never plays the center first.

 

Dad becomes curious as to why this is happening. He watches them play for a few games and discovers that his young daughter is always playing the same positions regardless of where the boy starts and because of this, the boy found a better play to begin the game with his sister. - Down goes the mathematician.

 

The father tries to explain that the boy is only winning because of the way his sister is playing and that in the real world such would not be the right thing to do. But of course, it is too late for the boy to again accept that "father knows best". At school the boy finds another friend to play the game. He notices that his friend tends to always prefer certain moves too. So, he compensates and wins most of the time, but has yet to bother playing from the center. The young boy now knows that he knows the real trick to the game. He knows to watch your opponent and respond accordingly.

 

What has happened is that the wise father studying reality, came up with what he was certain was "the voice of God". He knew that he had every possibility covered and had to be right. And thus professed a "holy law".

 

But the holy law only provided for the best opportunity, not any guarantee. This caused the boy to search further after a loss or 2. The boy happened to notice something that the father had not considered in his holy law. He noticed that watching the other player's faults was the way to victory. The father had assumed the worse case of the opponent being equally wise.

 

The son then updates the father's holy law. The son proclaims, "the holy place to begin the game is where your opponent doesn't compensate." A new holy law is born.

 

But then the sister grows up a bit and asks where to begin if you don't really know your opponent. The boy simply replies that you watch a few times. The father says well, I always start in the center regardless.

 

The young girl decides that the real holy law must read, "Until you can identify a weakness in your opponent, always start in the center." And a even newer "holy law" is born.

 

Three generations of holy prophets, each analyzing the same reality and making their best guess as to the most perfect law to obey. Each teaches the next generation of their wisdom as holiness. Each questions the one prior when they don't instantly win. The law becomes more perfected with each generation of prophet. But without the first, would the last ever have even tried or had anything to build from?

 

Should the father be condemned or ignored for not being as perfect as he had thought?

Even the last prophet must examine the true wisdom of the first to ensure a greater perfection.

 

==================================================================

 

The NT is obviously a “new generation” from the OT. It proclaims advancements and considerations that the OT did not handle. Obviously Jesus is the main character delivering these new concepts to create a “new holiness”. In the OT Moses was the prime character delivering the “words from God” (and thus the Holiness).

 

The Jewry (meaning merely the entirety of the Jewish effort) still uses these laws that we have pointed out as being actually unholy, as their guide. By doing this, they gain the freedom to fill in the blanks as they choose to justify any act they wish (as a whole) to conduct. This creates a serious trust issue.

 

Jesus apparently made an attempt to rectify this freedom to control by virtue of vague laws (ie. “Laws make nothing perfect.”). He seemed to prefer that the spirit be the guide rather than laws and this is the most obvious distinction between the 2 ideologies.

 

The OT is filled with laws which can be easily analyzed as to their true holiness. But the NT did not make a new list of holy commandments which could so easily be analyzed.

 

I have pointed out in this thread of the obviousness of the unholiness of the Jewish way and the dangers involved in accepting such laws as; “from God” and thus perfect. But this is not an Ex (or anti) Jewish site. I doubt that you could find an English anti-Jewish site. This is an Ex (or anti) Christian site. Thus I would expect to be seriously challenged to defend anything concerning Jesus and any holiness of the NT.

 

I am pro-holiness as I have defined it. Thus I am anti-unholiness ANYwhere I find it. I don’t care who said it or where it was said. I don’t care if it was proclaimed to be from Moses, Jesus, or God Himself. If I can see an unholiness in it, then I am willing to point it out (what you have called my arrogance). This does not imply that I think that I am holy – far from it. I am merely saying that I am willing to use consistent sound logic to identify and accept the unholiness of ANY writings from ANY one (including myself ).

 

The apparent and suspected inconsistencies of the NT writing are more than covered over and over on other threads. This thread is more for the logical concern of proclaimed holy statements which can be logically shown to be less than holy.

 

We have already pointed out that both the OT and the NT are missing what would amount to a dictionary so as to prevent misreadings. Thus there is one strike against the NT already.

 

 

 

Let me stand in for “The attorney for the Defense of Jesus Himself” and CHALLENGE YOU to show me the unholiness of the logic involved in Jesus’ way. I am willing to accept any evidence of logical unholiness as it has been defined if I can not logically defend the issue.

 

So where are all of those anti-Christian debaters who should be able to inform me (and us) of all of the logical unholiness of the NT concerning the “rules of proper play in life”.

[SkepticOfBible]

Jesus apparently made an attempt to rectify this freedom to control by virtue of vague laws (ie. “Laws make nothing perfect.”).

The NT Character named Jesus , apparently on many occassion said that the "holy" laws of the OT were to be followed.

This is evidenced by the confusion that runs amok in the ranks of christians.

For Christian who want to proclaim that OT(such as prohibition of homosexuality) still are valid today, they succesfully quote Jesus and Paul where they seems to be "pro OT laws"

However if the OT laws interfere with their Pet doctines they will quote Paul and Jesus in which they seem to be "anti OT Laws"

This is illustrated by the following debate between 2 christians

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messian...ec8430949bf1e5e

The status of the law of the OT has still not determined for the last 2000 years, because of the NT are giving contradictory remarks.

He seemed to prefer that the spirit be the guide rather than laws and this is the most obvious distinction between the 2 ideologies.

First of all you have define to us what do you mean by "spirit"?

Does this mean do discard all the laws of the OT and now go for a "spirit" centered theology? How do you it is the "spirit" guiding your descision and not your biased mind?

What happens if 3 people come to you and says 3 completely different things about the same issue and then claim "The spirit guides me to my answer", how do you determine which person is led by the "spirit"? In order words is there a objective standard by which we determine that a certain person is genuinely guided by the "spirit" and is speaking the truth?

[Ssel]

First of all you have define to us what do you mean by "spirit"?

Spirit =

) Technical sense - Motions within something or someone.

) Social sense - Emotions being displayed by people.

) Personal sense - Instincts, moods, emotions, thoughts, feelings both deep and general.

 

Does this mean do discard all the laws of the OT and now go for a "spirit" centered theology?

No no no.. It means to accept the laws, but realize via your “holy spirit” how to apply them. This is taking care of all of those exception cases that we talked about. This is like the young girl who saw that dear ole Dad was right when nothing else was known, but older brother was right once more information was at hand. The “spirit” uses your information base as a part of its guide.

 

How do you it is the "spirit" guiding your descision and not your biased mind?

This is the entire point to being “humble”. To be humble isn’t about being all sweet just so as to please others. Being humble means respecting things for what they truly ARE and not letting your own passions and desires blind you from details and things that you didn’t want to accept. On the Black Box thread, we’re going to get into exactly why this occurs.

 

What happens if 3 people come to you and says 3 completely different things about the same issue and then claim "The spirit guides me to my answer", how do you determine which person is led by the "spirit"? In order words is there a objective standard by which we determine that a certain person is genuinely guided by the "spirit" and is speaking the truth?

The point is not to follow another person who claims to have “the spirit”. The point is for you to get as close as you can to accepting a “holy spirit” as you can. (This is another reason it is silly to think that I am trying to gain some following.) But on the other hand, having a holy spirit means that you use ALL information before you and within you, thus you still listen to what others are saying and consider how right they may or may not be. It is ALWAYS simply your best guess. But that guess can get far more accurate than you probably think if you let it.

 

What were listed as “the seven deadly sins” are emotions which very easily blind the mind to detailed but significant thoughts. This is why you’re told to avoid them. It is merely recommending methods to be more intelligent and not trapped by those who will use your blindness against you.

 

holy spirit = When all of your thoughts and feelings are guided by the total balance of all that you know and can sense. This requires a calm and humble attitude so that the mind can really use information that it already has as well as feel confident enough to take its time and not judge anything as fact or need until it really must.

 

Having a “holy spirit” merely means, in today’s technical terms, that someone is truly using all of the mental faculties in harmony as they think and guide their actions. It means being truly as intelligent as you can be and aware of as much as you can be. Humility greatly helps with this effort. Humility prevents subconscious from presuming which blinds the conscious mind from subtle but important details. Again, the Black Box thread will get into the technical reasons why this occurs.

 

Holy Spirit = The consideration of not only what a normal person is capable, but the true balance of ALL things. Thus this term refers to only God who is (supposed to be) aware of ALL things. When someone says that “Holy Spirit = God” then what they are saying is that the motions of all things together is what God is. They are giving the definition of “God” once you realize what the “Holy Spirit” meant.

 

Each person being as close as they can be to having a “holy spirit” allows them to review what they truly assess of any other person who has claimed to have the holy spirit. No man or machine can have a truly totally holy spirit, thus each must merely do the best they can. It is only saying to use your mind and your senses as well as you possibly can.

 

Pride (ego) and vanity tend to cause people to claim that they have more holiness than they actually do. But then again, the desire to be as holy as you can be is the exact same as the desire to be as intelligent as you can be. This isn’t a bad thing unless it becomes too much of a show for others. The emphasis to show others how holy you are distracts from the higher goal of truly and carefully feeling out every tiny bit of information that you really had and not presuming any more than you really had to.

 

The effort to show others how great you are tempts you into presumption because you have a desire to say things as wise facts which you are not really that certain of yet.

 

In addition, the metaphorical understanding of the “baptism” reveals a process (not a ritual) which helps to cause your mind to be able to clear up and gain a harmony with itself. This is why Jesus said, “Wow this is kewl, you guys should do this.”

[Ssel]

Soooo...

 

How does all of this reflect on the UNHoliness aspect of Jesus Himself??

[SkepticOfBible]

No no no.. It means to accept the laws, but realize via your "holy spirit" how to apply them. This is taking care of all of those exception cases that we talked about.

 

...

 

But on the other hand, having a holy spirit means that you use ALL information before you and within you, thus you still listen to what others are saying and consider how right they may or may not be. It is ALWAYS simply your best guess. But that guess can get far more accurate than you probably think if you let it.

 

holy spirit = When all of your thoughts and feelings are guided by the total balance of all that you know and can sense. This requires a calm and humble attitude so that the mind can really use information that it already has as well as feel confident enough to take its time and not judge anything as fact or need until it really must.

 

Having a "holy spirit" merely means, in today's technical terms, that someone is truly using all of the mental faculties in harmony as they think and guide their actions. It means being truly as intelligent as you can be and aware of as much as you can be. Humility greatly helps with this effort. Humility prevents subconscious from presuming which blinds the conscious mind from subtle but important details. Again, the Black Box thread will get into the technical reasons why this occurs.

 

Holy Spirit = The consideration of not only what a normal person is capable, but the true balance of ALL things. Thus this term refers to only God who is (supposed to be) aware of ALL things. When someone says that "Holy Spirit = God" then what they are saying is that the motions of all things together is what God is. They are giving the definition of "God" once you realize what the "Holy Spirit" meant.

 

Each person being as close as they can be to having a "holy spirit" allows them to review what they truly assess of any other person who has claimed to have the holy spirit. No man or machine can have a truly totally holy spirit, thus each must merely do the best they can. It is only saying to use your mind and your senses as well as you possibly can.

 

 

 

So in order words you are saying use reasoning a lot and then at the end of the day let your conscience decide the final answer.

 

If you come across a law in OT and the conscience tells you to reject it, then you should do that?

 

and can you apply the same methology when you read the quran or the bhagwad Gita?

 

Well so can we conclude that using this methodology we cannot get absolute answers, and this amount to differences to opinion.?

 

 

This is the entire point to being "humble". Being humble means respecting things for what they truly ARE and not letting your own passions and desires blind you from details and things that you didn't want to accept.

 

 

Can someone be humble and still come to a wrong conclusion, even after they consulted with the holy spirit?

 

What happens if 3 people come to you and says 3 completely different things about the same issue and then claim "The spirit guides me to my answer", how do you determine which person is led by the "spirit"? In order words is there a objective standard by which we determine that a certain person is genuinely guided by the "spirit" and is speaking the truth?

 

 

The point is not to follow another person who claims to have "the spirit". The point is for you to get as close as you can to accepting a "holy spirit" as you can.

 

 

Well the reason why I had asked this was because if the "holy spirit" methodology hasn't worked for millions of people, I don't think it would work for me, and pretty much there is no way to determine whether it's your conscience who hel

 

 

What were listed as "the seven deadly sins" are emotions which very easily blind the mind to detailed but significant thoughts. This is why you're told to avoid them. It is merely recommending methods to be more intelligent and not trapped by those who will use your blindness against you.

 

 

In order words they are guides not a laws.

[Ssel]

..But on the other hand, having a holy spirit means that you use ALL information before you and within you..

 

..holy spirit = When all of your thoughts and feelings are guided by the total balance of all that you know and can sense..

 

Having a "holy spirit" merely means, in today's technical terms, that someone is truly using all of the mental faculties in harmony as they think and guide their actions. It means being truly as intelligent as you can be and aware of as much as you can be. Humility greatly helps ..

 

Holy Spirit = The consideration of not only what a normal person is capable, but the true balance of ALL things..

 

Each person being as close as they can be to having a "holy spirit" .. It is only saying to use your mind and your senses as well as you possibly can.

So in order words you are saying use reasoning a lot and then at the end of the day let your conscience decide the final answer.

I am always leery when someone uses the word "conscious". It is almost always misunderstood and leads to a mystical illusion of what it really is.

 

Your real consciousness can not know a great many things. This is where your intuitive feelings come into play. Your intuitive feelings alert your conscious that something needs attending. Your conscious was created to serve those intuitions. When someone is humble in attitude, they can sense those intuitive feelings much better. Those intuitive feelings then aid the conscious in its effort to truly examine ALL possibilities and options. Neither the conscious nor the intuition can have all of the answers, but the combination of them increases the intelligence.

 

If you come across a law in OT and the conscience tells you to reject it, then you should do that?

Only if your carefully and humbly sensed intuition also agrees.

 

and can you apply the same methology when you read the quran or the bhagwad Gita?

The point is to increase your total intelligence. Yes, use your maximum intelligence in all that you do.

 

Well so can we conclude that using this methodology we cannot get absolute answers, and this amount to differences to opinion.?

No. At times an absolute truth can be identified. But it is not guaranteed that this will always occur. In fact it is a guarantee that a human can never always know the absolute truth of all things.

 

Opinions are perspectives. The word generally refers to a perspective from an uncertain guess. As long as there is uncertainty, there will be opinions.

 

This is the entire point to being "humble". Being humble means respecting things for what they truly ARE and not letting your own passions and desires blind you from details and things that you didn't want to accept.

Can someone be humble and still come to a wrong conclusion, even after they consulted with the holy spirit?

No. The "holy spirit" (with the small h) is referring to the total sum of all that you know and can sense. No one can know and sense totally all things, thus at some point, even with the holy spirit, a person must make a guess. But that same holy spirit knows that it is merely a guess. As long as that aspect is a part of the conclusion, then the conclusion will always be correct. ie. "I suspect someone is at my door." This is absolutely correct simply because it included the humility factor of "someone being at my door" as merely a suspicion and not an absolute fact.

 

Keeping in mind that everything is a guess, is what makes things become far less uncertain because they are not misled by false absolute concluding.

[Ssel]

What happens if 3 people come to you and says 3 completely different things about the same issue and then claim "The spirit guides me to my answer", how do you determine which person is led by the "spirit"? In order words is there a objective standard by which we determine that a certain person is genuinely guided by the "spirit" and is speaking the truth?

Well the reason why I had asked this was because if the "holy spirit" methodology hasn't worked for millions of people, I don't think it would work for me, and pretty much there is no way to determine whether it's your conscience who hel

The holy spirit is merely referring to your maximum intelligence. If your maximum intelligence isn't going to work for you, do you think that dumbing up would work better?

 

What were listed as "the seven deadly sins" are emotions which very easily blind the mind to detailed but significant thoughts. This is why you're told to avoid them. It is merely recommending methods to be more intelligent and not trapped by those who will use your blindness against you.

In order words they are guides not a laws.

In science a "law" is something which CAN NOT be broken. In governing, a law is something that isn't supposed to be broken. When governing laws are given to a group, they often do not apply to an individual situation. These general laws must be individually assessed.

 

The point to giving a general governing law is to strongly emphasis the direction of your guidance. There are no governing laws that are absolute (yet). This is what the Messiah is to do.

 

It is up to the Messiah to provide absolute governing laws. These are laws that are always applicable without modifications or exceptions. This is one of the more relevant signs of the true Messiah. (But don't tell the Jews. They are still watching their gene pool for the Jewish boy who can create mystery within science)

 

 

And all of this says what about the unholiness of Jesus Himself?

[SkepticOfBible]

The point to giving a general governing law is to strongly emphasis the direction of your guidance. There are no governing laws that are absolute (yet). This is what the Messiah is to do.

 

It is up to the Messiah to provide absolute governing laws. These are laws that are always applicable without modifications or exceptions. This is one of the more relevant signs of the true Messiah.

 

Where are you getting this information from?

 

My reading of the OT shows that the Messiah is not going to change anything from the Torah. The laws are declared as absolute and perfect.

 

In the messianic age, God is going to imprint the Torah in the heats of everybody, so that no one needs to learn what is to be done wrongly, and god will be in contact with everybody and will guide everybdy(Kind of like the Borg)

 

Which is why christian who are "pro law" and Muslims will say that the because Jesus and Mohammed recommened the implementation of the Torah, therefore he was the valid messiah.

But don't tell the Jews. They are still watching their gene pool for the Jewish boy who can create mystery within science

 

And don't tell the christians that the Messiah never came.

 

BTW did David come from the tribe of Judah?

 

And all of this says what about the unholiness of Jesus Himself?

Well I am not sure where do you find Jesus saying "that you follow of the spirit of law, and therefore you don't obey it".

 

On the other Jesus did recommend that every law should followed(including the unholy laws that we discussed about)

 

PS:I didn't see the following post of yours

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...&gopid=123044

Do you mind if I start another thread regarding this, since I believe this will go beyond the scope of the current topic

[Ssel]

The point to giving a general governing law is to strongly emphasis the direction of your guidance. There are no governing laws that are absolute (yet). This is what the Messiah is to do.

 

It is up to the Messiah to provide absolute governing laws. These are laws that are always applicable without modifications or exceptions. This is one of the more relevant signs of the true Messiah.

 

Where are you getting this information from?

Well, I appologize, this is my own preaching. I don't really know if the Bible supports it. If not, it should have.

My reading of the OT shows that the Messiah is not going to change anything from the Torah. The laws are declared as absolute and perfect.

We have already seen the proof of that not being correct. The OT laws are anything but absolute or perfect.

In the messianic age, God is going to imprint the Torah in the heats of everybody, so that no one needs to learn what is to be done wrongly, and god will be in contact with everybody and will guide everybdy(Kind of like the Borg)

This a only partly true. The Messiah will adjust the laws into what is truly holy and THEN they will become a part of everyone. Btw, Jesus' teachings will not change much at all. But What I'm asking on this thread is what kinds of changes would be required to make his teachings truly holy.

Which is why christian who are "pro law" and Muslims will say that the because Jesus and Mohammed recommened the implementation of the Torah, therefore he was the valid messiah.

I know Jesus included the laws but only under the stipulation that the Holy Spirit come first priority.

 

And don't tell the christians that the Messiah never came.

 

BTW did David come from the tribe of Judah?

I seriously doubt it. But was George Washington a Baptist? What if you had no record except that from the Baptist church telling you that he was?

 

Well I am not sure where do you find Jesus saying "that you follow of the spirit of law, and therefore you don't obey it".

"The law makes nothing perfect" And he "worked" on the sacred sabeth day.

PS:I didn't see the following post of yours

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...&gopid=123044

Do you mind if I start another thread regarding this, since I believe this will go beyond the scope of the current topic

I believe it is exactly on topic actually. Unless I misunderstand what your talking about.

[SkepticOfBible]

We have already seen the proof of that not being correct. The OT laws are anything but absolute or perfect.

Which is one of the reason why I don't consider it to be divinely inspired

The Messiah will adjust the laws into what is truly holy and THEN they will become a part of everyone.

Well biblically speaking he is not change anything at all, and if he does change then he will definately not be the messiah of the OT

 

I know Jesus included the laws but only under the stipulation that the Holy Spirit come first priority.

 

Well the OT had difference understanding of relationship of the Law and God's Holy spirit

 

OT vs NT Understanding of The Holy Spirit

 

BTW did David come from the tribe of Judah?

I seriously doubt it. But was George Washington a Baptist? What if you had no record except that from the Baptist church telling you that he was?

 

Well I had inferred that based two christian claims

 

1)Christians say that the messiah had to be Jews which is why he was called King of the Jews

2)And christians say that Jesus came from the line of David, so I inferred that David must have been from the Line of Judah

 

 

Well I am not sure where do you find Jesus saying "that you follow of the spirit of law, and therefore you don't obey it".

"The law makes nothing perfect" And he "worked" on the sacred sabeth day.

 

Yeah, but again there are verses which strongly imply that law will in place. That probably because the two authors had different opinion about the law I guess.

 

Regarding the Sabbath Day work, christians will say "oh he never worked cause he was eating that day". If you go to that Google Group link that I gave you, the two christians are argueing about that.

 

PS:I didn't see the following post of yours

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...&gopid=123044

Do you mind if I start another thread regarding this, since I believe this will go beyond the scope of the current topic

I believe it is exactly on topic actually. Unless I misunderstand what your talking about.

 

I was specifically talking about your method of approaching the bible, like literal vs metaphorical understanding.

[Ssel]

Well biblically speaking he is not change anything at all, and if he does change then he will definately not be the messiah of the OT

Then Bibicaly speaking, the OT will be brought to humility and all of those who hold onto it.

 

1)Christians say that the messiah had to be Jews which is why he was called King of the Jews

2)And christians say that Jesus came from the line of David, so I inferred that David must have been from the Line of Judah

Realize that Scriptures are ALWAYS speaking in terms of "spirit" and thus what they were refering to was that the Messiah would be born of David's same spirit, not his genetic line necessarily. This threw the Jews as well. It has never been an issue of genetics, but of spirit or ideology.

 

I was specifically talking about your method of approaching the bible, like literal vs metaphorical understanding.

Oh, well I think that's a great idea, go4it.

 

 

and thanks for your participation here.

[SkepticOfBible]

Well biblically speaking he is not change anything at all, and if he does change then he will definately not be the messiah of the OT

Then Bibicaly speaking, the OT will be brought to humility and all of those who hold onto it.

 

Where will that be?

 

1)Christians say that the messiah had to be Jews which is why he was called King of the Jews

2)And christians say that Jesus came from the line of David, so I inferred that David must have been from the Line of Judah

Realize that Scriptures are ALWAYS speaking in terms of "spirit" and thus what they were refering to was that the Messiah would be born of David's same spirit, not his genetic line necessarily. This threw the Jews as well. It has never been an issue of genetics, but of spirit or ideology.

 

I think it is about Genetic, otherwise why would christians would present the Geneolgies of NT writers of Luke and Matthew?They Genealogy of Mt and Luke certainly try mimic the Genealogy given in Chronicles.

 

Secondly the OT explicity talks about the Genetic Line coming from David through Solomon.

 

If you wish to discuss more about Genealogies, please check out the Geneaology thread in the Colloseum.

 

And obviously I hope when you mean David's spirit, I presume you are not alluring to reincarnation.

 

I was specifically talking about your method of approaching the bible, like literal vs metaphorical understanding.

Oh, well I think that's a great idea, go4it.

 

 

and thanks for your participation here.

Ok

[Ssel]

Well biblically speaking he is not change anything at all, and if he does change then he will definately not be the messiah of the OT

Then Bibicaly speaking, the OT will be brought to humility and all of those who hold onto it.

 

Where will that be?

I'm not certain what you mean by "where". What city? Where in time?

 

I think it is about Genetic, otherwise why would Christians would present the Geneolgies of NT writers of Luke and Matthew?They Genealogy of Mt and Luke certainly try mimic the Genealogy given in Chronicles.

Simply because they had 1000 years of people worrying about only their families and how anyone descending from a famous person was more important than other people.

 

Secondly the OT explicity talks about the Genetic Line coming from David through Solomon.

And just how do you know they were speaking of genetic lines? As opposed to spiritual lines?

 

 

Do you seriously think that the Egyptian Pharaoh couldn't tell the difference between a Hebrew boy being raised by his wife versus an Egyptian boy? And even the boy, Moses, couldn't tell the difference until he met his real mother at the age of 40? The Egyptians and the Hebrews looked no more alike than the Koreans and the Chinese.

 

The ONLY thing that matters in ALL scriptures is the spirit. They are given names often associated with the name of the person involved, but sometimes the person's name is totally left out in favor of a more meaningful name.

 

This is similar to the American Indian's practice of naming a child by the spirit they perceived or wished for. ie. "Running Horse", "Falling Rain", "Dear Foot", and so on.

 

Do you really believe that the man who painted the Cestine chapel just happen to have the name "Michael the Angel" ?

 

And the “man” who wrote the famed book of predictions was named Nostrodamus (Our Damnation in Latin). What the “Damnation” family named their son “Our” and he became a Priest who happened to have written about up coming curses for humanity?

 

Be careful what you assume.