Posts by Jonathan Drake

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

There are reasons the Greek ohrase was unique to Christ.

Also your reference you quoted said the exact same thing I said. So I'm glad we agree now, but it was a very long journey getting here.

8

Did God establish His Covenant with the Gentile Nations or the Jews?

by sowhatnow in

im not sure where to post this but i think its telling.

not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.

the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].

Jonathan Drake

Look at Romans 9:1-7. Here Paul expresses regret over the Israelites refusal to except Christ, and he says that, "not all who descend from Israel are really Israel" this is because their covenant was broken, they refused rhe messiah and the promise now goes to all nations.

look too at verses 30, 31, he further states that people of the nations, "though not pursuing righteousness, attained righteousness, the righteousness that results from faith" but contrasts that with literal Israelites saying, "but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law." He then says that they had no faith (because they denied Christ) and that they stumbled over the law instead of excepted the one who fulfilled the law.

So throughout this entire chapter, Paul is making the point that the Jews lost their special position with God when they denied the one who fulfilled the law. And shows that because of this the promise now was extended to all nations, even those who are not descendants of Israel, aka Jacob.(verse 6).

17

How do the JW's get around this scripture??

by Crazyguy in

hebrews 9:27new international version (niv).

27 just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, .

.

Jonathan Drake

@prologos

i should clarify I know the effects on history don't necessarily make it true per say. I meant only that the individual is special, made so by the devotion to the person existing for a little over 2000 years or so now. Your references thee to people like Buddha and such, by way of comparison, I would never say such men weren't special even though I don't follow the religion formed around them. They were certainly special in one way or another if they have effected the shape of an entire people's culture. That's what I meant. Regardless of its truth. I hope that I expressed my meaning better here.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

Let's leave it at this, it's evident that you and I have an issue communicating. For whatever reason you can't grasp what I'm actually saying, and apparently from your expressions nor I you.

Therefore it is best we go our separate ways. You seem convinced you are right rather than interested in a discussion, and I'm not going to talk up to you. References won't matter really, as I would assume you have your own and believe them to be fact rather than theory since there is no way to be sure absolutely 100% what was going on that far back. But I can say I am very convinced when comparing the various cultures that the worship of the one God, which you are correct would have been called El, is much older than the gods that sprang up later. According to the bible, aside from the cultures, the God previousky known as El Shaddai was not known by name until he revealed it, giving him a distinction that didn't preciously exist because el is not a name it's a title.

He had no reason to provide a distinction previously, as he was the only one called God. From what I have read in two of the books I have currently, this seems most likely.

Having said that, I'll leave you to your own beliefs about it, and I apologize for getting somewhat heated. It is frustrating to me when I am being misunderstood and it appears that isn't going to change in this instance. I will also say I am willing to acquire any reference you think I should read from which you have built your position and read it myself. but I am now going to step away from this thread and only check it for any reference you believe I should read.

Pas to my own referenced I have one trustworthy and one not as much. "The first is the Oxford history of the biblical world" which I confess only being half through. The second is a copy of the two Babylons by Alexander hislop. The second isn't quit as trustworthy, and the entire book is about attacking the Catholic Church. However: in doing so he does site a lot of good points using sound historical sources such as Eusebius and many others which I took the time to verify myself - and he uses these to show the origins of the idolatrous world around Melchizadek. If you check this book however, I can't stress enough how important it is to check his sources, because over half of his book is complete garbage, but the first half is full of bery sound, referenced, observances of the ancient world.

The former book, which is far more reliable and much larger, includes a great deal of information about el which, whether they noticed or not, matches the book of Enochs discription of the ancient world very well. The book explains that El Shadday is better translated as the mountain one, and the el was the father of the pantheon made around him. You may not have read Enoch I'm not sure, but according to that book, Angels were sent to teach mankind early technologies and these Angels settled on a mountain from which they came to teach. It was these Angels who began to mingle with human women and teach things they weren't supposed to and ended up imprisoned for their deeds and precipitating events tat lead to the flood.

So from what I've read of the God El, it fits fully with the ancient manuscripts depictions of the God who was yahweh. Also, this book shows that el came first, he is called the father of the other gods in the pantheon according to the ancient texts. There were evidently some who felt this worship of the others were wrong however, and they stuck to the one God. From these who worshipped the one God you find men such as Melchizadek, who only worshipped Elshaddai (the God of the mountain) while the others around him took to worshipping the entire pantheon developed around this God. And according to Gensis, abraham claimed this god as his, and as soon as he left his idolatrous home land he sought out Melchizadek, the priest of the one God.

This history, and the sources referenced in the book as the ancient sources, demonstrate el was the first God to be worshipped. And only later was a pantheon created around him by the people of the ancient world.

53

What exactly was going on after Jesus was put to death and no longer around?

by Terry in

the jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.

members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.

thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.

Jonathan Drake

@Phizzy yes I see what your talking about. Very interesting.

i wonder about this because, if I may, I'd like to share a theory I have developed while writing about various subjects in my journal.

Check out revelation chapter 20. Bear in mind this is only a theory, so I'm not saying thisnis how it is or something. In chapter 20, the order of events is that at the START of christs thousand year reign the devil is abyssed and the elect are raised in the first resurrection. It specifically says that the rest of the dead are not raised until the end of the thousand years. It goes on to say that after the thousand years the devil is released, he gathers the nations together for the war (which I contend is harmeggedon), he loses and then (again this is AFTER the thousand year reign of Christ) he is thrown into the fire and death is no more and the rest of the dead (who aren't of the elect) are raised to be judged.

this chronology seems to match what is found in 1 Cor 15:23-27, where Christ is raises first, then the elect, then the end when he hands over the kingdom only after he has abolished authority rule and power. After this, death is abolished as the last enemy.

I theorize, based on these scriotures, that they believed in the first century Christ really was coming right back. That the perusia happened something before or around 100 (according to the bible) and that within a few hundred years from that the devil was already abyssed for 1000 years. The let loose prior to the war of Armageddon not for some post paradise test. I've held this theory for some time, and I would submit that this contradiction in the Thessalonian letters supports that theory. So that in the first he was talking about the Perusia which they believed was immanent, but that in the second he was addressing those not of the elect who would remain on earth as citizens of the kingdom over which they(the elect) rule as saints. For this reason he warns them, not of what must come before the perusia, but what must come before the final destruction of all evil and satanic influence of creation.

what do you think?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

My argument was not that yahweh predates the semetical region.

You re like an expert on the "straw man", you've done it fantastically. Were you in a pioneer school at some point? Because that would explain it.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

Ok.

well as of your last post I'm not going to continue responding. You've demonstrsted your ignorance with astounding loyalty to it, and I think you're really only interested in arguing, which I am not. Unlike you, I have read the bible many times, which is why I was able to show you where you are incorrect and reference scriotures that are showing a far earlier monotheistic stance. I also know, for sure, that the Greek phrase, "ho huios tou anthropou" is only found in the gospels. Okay? The bible wasn't written in English and your insistence otherwise is showing your ignorance. That Greek phrase, and it's expressed meaning in Greek, IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPELS.

now I'm done posting on the topic. If you still ensist otherwise please feel free to contact any New Testament scholar of your choosing to inform them they are wrong and you are right.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

A second point I will make as well, because I went on to read your other post, is that the many gods came after the one not before it.

The many gods worshipped in the pagan customs find their originality in the region where babel was founded (which I can't remember what the whole region is called off the top of my head). The one God, was worshipped in Salem by Melchizadek long before these other gods popped up created by the people living in the babel region. There are many historical references that I can bring into this that provide their reasons for making this assertion if you like. The conclusion is drawn by tracing the cultural customs back, and it ends up being that these people didn't want to live by the rules melchizadeks God enforced and went off to make their own gods, and their own way of living, free of those requirements.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

@Viv

i think you're missing my point, I wasn't saying you're right. You're very wrong. by which I mean no offense.

You are correct that the English phrase "son of man" is found in many places in the bible. You are incorrect however to assume these phrases are all the same just because they translate to the same English words. In the New Testament, and in the language it was written, the phrase used by Christ translated as Son of Man was new, not found anywhere else in the bible except where Christ used it to refer to himself. It is not the same as the phrases found elsewhere.

Also addressing your pseudo knowledge of ancient times, you are incorrect to assert that the expectation of the Hebrews to worship the one God originated as a novel idea in the Ten Commandments. In the Old Testament, you may remember (or not), the accout where Jacob leaves without labans knowledge in Gensis 31. Rachel takes labans idol gods with her. Laban overtakes them and throughout the entire chapter Jacob refers to these as, "your gods" not 'the gods' or 'our gods.' So he didn't claim any of these gods as his own. Further in vers 53 Jacob swears "by the one God" whom his father feared. So you are wrong, scripturally. The bible records the line through which the Israelites came was emphatically monotheistc. This goes as far back as Abraham, who in the book of jubilees (if you consider it anything) is credited with destroying the temple and all the idols therin of his hometown before leaving. He's also credited with arguing with his father over how wrong it is to worship them. And then there is Melchizadek, the king priest of Salem who blessed Abraham. The bible records that "the lesser is blessed by the greater" and that Melchizadek was the priest of the Most High God. That clearly is also the one God whom Abraham worshipped, since Christ was recorded to be "after the manner of Melchizadek" later in the bible, something that wouldn't happen if he (Melchizadek) was a priest of a god other than yahweh.

So no, you're wrong about that. You're not wrong that there were many gods, or that some Hebrews got swept up in the worship of them - but the God of the Hebrews is recorded as far back as Abraham as being yahweh and no other. The first commandment of the ten was not a novel idea, only a confirmation for a people who had just spent hundreds of years in slavery and didn't know their God like their forefathers did.

17

How do the JW's get around this scripture??

by Crazyguy in

hebrews 9:27new international version (niv).

27 just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, .

.

Jonathan Drake

@prologos

because neither Christ as he is depicted or God wants people to put faith out of fear. They want people to have faith in them of their own initiative, not because of them showing themselves in some miraculous way and making it obvious. Also because, according to the bible, they are eager to reconcile creation. If Christ was on earth for 1000 years before his ascent to glory that would force the appointed time of the end much farther into the future.

So, in perspective of the scriotures, the way things happened would have been the most loving. It allows for the end of sin and suffering to come much sooner in the grand scheme of things.

Too, as far as the statement of, "if he is special prove it" I would argue it has been proven. Even if you don't believe in all the miracles that took place, you'd have to concede the fact that human history after Christ's death was shaped by his life. Western culture has been at the mercy of Christianity for a VERY long time. So to suggest that Christ wasnt a special person, even if you don't accept the existence of God or christs messianic status, is to ignore history itself.