Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,574
Do you mean if it would make the Bible less contradictory? Probably not. But to me it sheds light on scripture that I wouldn't have understood if it weren't for that perspective.
Lone voice, maybe?I like some of the ideas Mike draws out, perhaps the one big issue I have is that he is a scholar by profession and in some ways a bit of a line voice in the material he covers. As such he is at risk of going out too far on his own and accidentally breaking sound doctrine in order to make things FIT. I love to learn more about things, but I am aware that I don't know it all, and perhaps, as in the case of the seven thunders of Revelation, we are not told it all either!
God Bless His name!! SMHJesus Dac.
I dont get upset, I just wanted to highlight to everyone that you dont really have any ability to defend your positions because its all based on your subjective, personal opinion and nothing more. In other words, your perspectives arent backed up in Scriptures, and your hypocritical in everything you say about the Word of God, so people ought to take anything you say with heaps of salt...I even admitted that I don't have an answer and explained why I don't need one and you still get upset.
No it doesnt you just force things into the narrative and ignore other parts that show your ideology incorrect...If the thesis is to be valid, the thesis cannot contradict itself. And as I've shown it does.
SMH, you cant even seem to fathom anything that was happening, as tho God intended to just drag them around for no reason. Again what did God originally say He was going to do Art?And why should I even mirror anything to Jesus. Are the actions of Moses' desert god not bad enough without having to compare them to the perfect man / real God? A supposedly all-powerful being killing his own subjects who have dragged along behind him in the desert for 40 years, because they complained of hunger they didn't have before in Egypt?
I already explain the proper interpretation of this passage and what does Jesus quote only seconds later?We're gonna read the scripture you've provided together, attentively please, and find out who's misrepresenting it:
Jesus said: "Verily, Verily, I say unto you ..." So far so good, still on the same wave length, I hope? "Moses gave ..." Very important here is the past tense. Well, past tense usage is obvious, but it becomes extremely relevant because of what you should focus on later. Here we go. "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven;" Very interesting. Jesus said the manna they were given by Moses was not from Heaven, even though "God" was with them. "but my Father..." Jesus says "my Father", he doesn't say God just yet to make it clear He's talking about His Father. "but my Father giveth ..." Present tense, not past tense! " ... you the true bread from heaven." Jesus explicitly says that Moses did not (past tense!) give them the bread of heaven. He also explicitly says that His Father is giving them (present tense!) the true bread from Heaven. Nowhere does Jesus say it was His Father who gave them bread in the desert with Moses. Nowhere. You're reading that into it. Next part:
"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."
It can't get any clearer than this. The true bread of God (He says God now, to make it clear His Father is God) is not what Moses gave in the desert, it is Himself. The only logical conclusion here is that the manna Moses or his desert god gave was not Jesus.
I am.You're not making sense.
Interesting, I was studying the Word a bit ago and just happened to come across this one guy who believed in everything Moses wrote, and not only does it relate to this point but also to your prior points you incorrectly made like " All your mumbo jumbo about Jesus being the manna, Jesus feeding the people in the desert, supporting them like a rock, etc it's just not true!"It's easy to side with the account of Jahwists and people who believe in Moses against the people that bloody died in the desert.
Lol no, its funny how the most explicit verse you choose to skip over I mean I can quote dozens of text saying the same thing, but you will skip over them because you cant actually address them. Let me ask would YOU ever use the Old Testament Scriptures to qualify Christ to anyone? As in speak positively of them to show that Jesus is God? Surely you wouldnt, you hate the God of the Old Testament, you hate the Old Testament Scriptures, why would you EVER use the OT to qualify Christ, that would be defeating your entire purpose!because Paul's words can be relativised in context of his proselytism.
No, I believe that its speaking of the False Prophet there, has nothing to do with what you are trying to imply, but what does Jesus say about Moses and his writings, lets keep focusing on what Jesus declares and not what we declare is that fair?The image of the beast, would that look something like a serpent? Something like this:
Apparently you are incapable of understanding the Spiritual lessons and congruencies between Christ and the Old Testament, its not your fault tho, its only Spiritually Discerned by those who have been Born Again:What does this say other than belief in the Son of Man will grant eternal life, while belief in Moses' serpent was required to not die on the spot? Can the difference not be greater?
Ugh, incapable of Spiritual discernment, why did the plague come upon them? Oh thats right because they Sinned but still He gives Grace and offers a redemption to them, which again is a foreshadowing of Jesus, which is what Jesus declares Himself but you are too blind to see I suppose.Why yes, that's exactly what it is. Ockham's razor. In fact, it's outright sadistic, instilling people with a disease and then demanding worship to be healed from that disease. This is one the very distinguishing traits of Satan in all old mythologies!
Ok, hey Israelities, the events you went through are foreshadowing of all people and the Redemption to come thru Christ, the Messiah. Lets not forget Jesus also said this:Tell that to the Israelites.
You mean the Law that speaks of Jesus? The Law Jesus followed? The Law Jesus told the young rich man and everyone else to follow to inherit eternal life? Justice is inherently universal and transcendent, maybe you should read and agree with what Paul says about that?And I dedicate a whole chapter to the dimension of Justice and what place it has in the greater moral scheme. Justice is a coverup for good and evil, arbitrarily devised by a lawmaker, not inherently universal and transcendent. Only Good is, but for that you need knowledge of good and evil, which the "god of Justice" prohibited Man to attain, so Man would follow his law.
Lol because Gnosticism is doing so well and has done the world so much good, as opposed to Christianity which has saved billions of people. If Christianity is in a bad shape its not because people believe Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are the same, its because like you they reject massive portions of the Bible that doesnt fit their made up Religions and Ideologies instead of submitting to what the Word says concerning everything in life....The fact that you and millions of others believe that is exactly the reason why Christianity is in such a bad shape and a tragedy I'm trying to undo.
There it is more cognitive dissonance to try and ignore the clear problems with your ideologies and what it means considering Jesus is speaking positively about Elijah. So do you not think Jesus is aware of the Scriptures He is quoting and the Authors He is endorsing? Do you really think the Bible at the time of Christ which Christ quotes verbatim, and the Bible we have now, OT, are different? I think not my dear sir and you know for a fact they are 99% identical, so again your just blowing smoke. The Elijah of the OT is the real Elijah and Jesus endorses him plain and simple.So? Maybe Elias was an actual prophet, but different than the Elias we know from the OT. Maybe he didn't call fire from heaven. Maybe he didn't send she-bears to tear up 42 children just because they mocked him. Maybe those tales of Elias are manufactured by the scribes and Pharisees to instil fear in their subjects; and the OT version you have in your possession is with 100% certainty a Pharisaic product, don't even doubt that fact.
Trust me brother I know exactly what the Spiritual meaning behind that is, and you are close to what it means but your hatred for Moses and Elijah keep you from seeing exactly what it means. The Law and the Prophets can get you so far but Jesus is the one whom we should always keep our eyes upon. The Law and the Prophets were given the SAME Righteous position in glory as Christ, that is what you cant accept or see because the god of this world blinds you to it. However Jesus came fulfilled both as intended and written about in the Law and the Prophets and thus we have Jesus encompassing both the Law and the Prophets in Himself. It definitely doesnt mean not to listen to Moses or Elijah, Jesus already told us they wrote about Him. To not listen to the Law and the Prophets (which btw is what Moses and Elijah Spiritually represent here if I wasnt clear) is to not listen to Jesus....Maybe there's a hidden meaning in that passage of Matthew. Peter suggests to make 3 tabernacles, but the Father from heaven says "listen to Jesus, in him I am well pleased". What does that mean? Listen to Jesus and not to Moses or Elias? No tabernacles for Moses and Elias? When the disciples throw their face down to the ground and look back up, they only see Jesus. Moses and Elias are gone.
Ugh, Jesus quotes from the same exact text you have today, this is fact...There are so many mysteries here that neither you or me can provide a definite answer to, and not in the least will we find the answer in that book that has been tampered with by the very people Jesus warned about; the hypocrites and liars, scribes and Pharisees, descendants of Cain himself.
I addressed this early, you arent capable of seeing Jesus as Judge and bringer of Wrath, He came first as the Lamb to offer Salvation from the Wrath to come, of which He will pour out when He returns. YHWH and Jesus have the exact same attributes...Dac, you're not thinking clearly. Isn't this verse in exact opposition to the actions of God in the OT? Jesus is not come to destroy lives. The god of Elias destroyed lives. Your reasoning: former God, latter God = same God, while their actions / behaviour could not be more contradictory.
Then you better stop believing in Jesus, the bringer of Wrath who will literally destroy the Earth and all those who dont believe on Him and then He Himself will end up throwing them into the Lake of Fire....You complain I'm chopping up the Bible to fit my view, but the problem is that my view would stop being coherent if I adopt everything the Bible says. Just see the effects of complete subordination to biblical literalism on your moral code. You would follow a genocidal narcissist if only you believed he was god while you should be rejecting that self-proclaimed god on the basis of being a genocidal narcissist.
Umm He didnt bring the fire to prove He is God in this narrative, I think you arent able to decipher there are 2 events here maybe? The men who were killed were killed because they were coming to kill Elijah, God protected Elijah from murderers, that Evil God. The second time Fire didnt destroy anyone it was brought down to prove that God was real and Baal was a false god. ( Which in your made up Religion makes no sense as you liken YHWH to Baal, completely nonsensical to have YHWH competing against Himself)It's unbelievable the apologetics you will go to to defend a being killing hundreds of men to prove he is God.
You make an utter joke of Jesus in everything you write, shame on you. I was very clear as to what the difference was, it was of wrong Spirit for these men to want to have Jesus destroy them for not accepting Him into their village. They thought of Elijah why? Because it was the SAME PLACE, Elijah was justified to call down fire to protect himself, or shall no one be protected by God in your made up Religion. Anywho, what does Paul call God Art?Jesus rebukes his disciples for being of the wrong spirit, while all they were thinking was the same thing Elias and his god actually did, but Elias or his god was not of the wrong spirit? You're making an utter joke of Jesus to insinuate He would apply double standards like that. Shame on you.
No sir its never made worse when we speak on this subject, every time it has and will continue to be shown that Jesus Father is YHWH. Every time you respond I will be given the opportunity to quote more and more and more and more Scriptures that show the Truth which is YHWH is Jesus God, is Pauls God, is Matt Mark Luke Jude John James God...Seems like you made the problem worse, cause everything you say about Jesus being the manna, etc, simply isn't true. Still not convinced?
If you reply Amen, just more opportunity to preach the Gospel and show how Jesus and YHWH are the same, if no response then what I have written which is the Truth has no opposition and everyone who comes upon this Thread will see it stand against what you have posted.And keep your posts succinct and respectful next time, if you want to get any reply at all.
Revelation is one giant metaphor. We already know some of the metaphors in those verses you posted:Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
Rev 16usness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Whose Wrath is this Art? Is it Evil YHWHs? Or is it someone else Wrath that is being doled out?
I suppose the difference would be the interpretation. Jesus used parables and metaphors. According to popular interpretation, the old testamentary god used actual plagues. Maybe he didn't though, and maybe it's another corruption of scripture altogether.So what exactly is the difference between Jesus here, pouring out plagues and having men blaspheme His name and complain about the Wrath they are enduring for their Sins, and the plagues and YHWH bringing Wrath against the Israelities who blasphemed His name and constantly complained about everything?
Your interpretation was proven incorrect. Read it again, please:I already explain the proper interpretation of this passage and what does Jesus quote only seconds later?
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
So Jesus says it is written in the Prophets and He quotes a Scripture and says that Scripture is about Him and His Father correct? I'll answer for you because you seem incapable of answering correctly when posed with these questions, YES, He is saying this Scripture is about Him and His Father, so what did He quote:
Is 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
What is that word transliterated as LORD? Oh thats right YHWH, so what did Jesus just confirm again a few sentences down? That YHWH is the Father.
Yea I do think your making it all up, and I dont think that these metaphors are the correct understanding of what is being written here. You can try and do anything you want but it does change the fact that Jesus is bringing Wrath. Are you going to invent a different meaning for Wrath too?As you can see the meaning of the metaphors changes the entire interpretation. Try substituting these metaphors with their meaning. You can even apply this to all sayings of Jesus in the Gospels outside of Revelation if you think I'm just making this stuff up.
Its not a corruption, what it says is True. And again Jesus will merit out Wrath and He does merit out Wrath, He says He will, Paul says He will, John says He will, Matthew says He will, Mark, Luke says He will.I suppose the difference would be the interpretation. Jesus used parables and metaphors. According to popular interpretation, the old testamentary god used actual plagues. Maybe he didn't though, and maybe it's another corruption of scripture altogether.
No not really...Your interpretation was proven incorrect.
Actually that is the entire problem, you are as bad, no I take that back, worse than the Muslims that pick and choose what Scriptures are true and "corrupted" your worse because you have the audacity to lie to others and try and convince them you are a Christian, but youre not your a Gnostic and a Gnostic who doesnt actually adhere to the basic tenets of Gnosticism. Apparently you are the one human on earth that knows exactly what is True and False, which is what happens when one elevates themselves into positions they shouldnt hold.Re Isaiah: I actually believe Isaiah could've been a true prophet, but the previously mentioned problem persists, that the account of the true Isaiah could very easily have been corrupted by the scribes of the Old Testament. So this verse:
Is 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Might be completely legit and the reference to it in John 6 might also be. If you're gonna give me stick for not "knowing" which verses are legit and not, or accusing me of subjectively selecting the legitimacy of scripture as long as it fits my view, spare yourself the time and energy because that's not the problem. The problem is that the scripture of the old testament and the accounts of the prophets therein are unreliable. If you're going to stick with "the Bible is the complete infallible word of God", okay then, fine, suit yourself, just stop bothering me with it because I will never agree with that.
I don't pretend to be a Bible scholar but is this the point you refer to...The Old Testament you have now is largely based on the 7th to 10th century AD Masoretic version! The differences between the Masoretic version and the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerous. Some chapters, especially Exodus are radically different. One of the verses that is so different that it changes everything, and it is mentioned in the article (which you clearly haven't read, since any genuine rebuttal would've tried to explain that. The biased ones would of course choose to ignore it) is the following:
Masoretic version
Deut 32:8-9:
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
(This verse doesn't even make any sense)
The Dead Sea Scrolls!
4QDEUT:
"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
Elyon (EL!) gave the nations AS an inheritance to HIS SONS, he did not give the nations their inheritance. Elyon gave Jacob (Israel) to Yahweh, one of HIS SONS.
(This verse makes sense!)
Re metaphors: "you don' think ..." I've challenged you to read the verses with these meanings in mind. I've challenged you to use it on scripture outside of Revelation to see if it fits and if the interpretations I've shared with you make any sense. You can use a hyper concordance to do that. If you do it you could come back at me with an honest feedback. Instead you choose to ignore it and call me a liar and deceiver while I'm putting it out here for you and everyone else to test. You're only deceiving yourself.
I call myself a Christian first btw and I'm a bloody proud one at that. I found my way to Christ, something which would've never happened by listening to the likes of you and other Yahweh-groupies and Judaizers. You would sooner disqualify a Christian who embraces all Christian scripture and not the book that wasn't written for Christians or contains any Christian revelation, than a Christian who discards dozens of Christian Gospels yet believes in that book that wasn't written for Christians and doesn't contain any Christian revelation.
That's called the world upside-down aka Satanism, but at least I know the author of it.
Again man Ive read your article, I read on the first board you posted it on, the second and now this time as well. I have told you I dont have the time to line by line dissect your religion, look how long of posts I make to rebut your posts on here, to rebut your entire article would take forever. I have time much better spent elsewhere. As for you assertions about the Deut 32:8-9, Ill let the guy you believe to more intelligent than express my viewpoints on that which in one part aligns with what you wrote and in another and overall doesnt. The Most High God is YHWH not what you suggest as tho its a different God but here Mike explains it much more in depth than I can:The Old Testament you have now is largely based on the 7th to 10th century AD Masoretic version! The differences between the Masoretic version and the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerous. Some chapters, especially Exodus are radically different. One of the verses that is so different that it changes everything, and it is mentioned in the article (which you clearly haven't read, since any genuine rebuttal would've tried to explain that. The biased ones would of course choose to ignore it) is the following:
I looked at the verses I quoted you with your ideology in mind, and it really doesnt make sense, it also more than anything doesnt address the whole WRATH part, which is why I am quoting all of that, because you keep trying to ignore the FACT that Jesus is going to be bringing Wrath just like YHWH did/does...Re metaphors: "you don' think ..." I've challenged you to read the verses with these meanings in mind. I've challenged you to use it on scripture outside of Revelation to see if it fits and if the interpretations I've shared with you make any sense. You can use a hyper concordance to do that. If you do it you could come back at me with an honest feedback. Instead you choose to ignore it and call me a liar and deceiver while I'm putting it out here for you and everyone else to test. You're only deceiving yourself.
I can call myself a Muslim but if I reject the Quran and the god of Muhammad it doesnt matter what I proclaim myself to be, I am not a Muslim. You can call yourself a Christian but youre not, your a Gnostic and a Gnostic that doesnt even represent Gnosticism in the manner in which the mass of Gnostics would agree with you.I call myself a Christian first btw and I'm a bloody proud one at that.
You havent found Christ yet brother, at least not the Biblical Christ, the real Christ. You found the Christ you invented, that is all...I found my way to Christ, something which would've never happened by listening to the likes of you and other Yahweh-groupies and Judaizers.
But you dont!!! As is seen everytime you and I converse, you remove most of the New Testament, why? Because the New Testament rejects your Religion. Just like your boy Valentinus when he cut the New Testament up to suit his personal ideology, because his ideology and the New Testament doesnt actually mesh...You would sooner disqualify a Christian who embraces all Christian scripture
But it does and you are literally calling Jesus a liar by saying and sticking to that, who did Mose write about? Of whom does the Scriptures attest too? JESUS!!!or contains any Christian revelation
Lol lets reword this correctly, you mean GNOSTIC false gospels, nothing Christian about them...than a Christian who discards dozens of Christian Gospels
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.believes in that book that wasn't written for Christians and doesn't contain any Christian revelation.
What a ridiculous analogy. The Gospel is my Bible and the God of Christ is my God. With embracing all of Christian scripture I mean I don't throw away entire gospels and books like you do. Sure, I won't take every word or every verse for granted, because they were written down by men and men make mistakes, men are forgetful, and most important of all, men can be corrupted.I can call myself a Muslim but if I reject the Quran and the god of Muhammad it doesnt matter what I proclaim myself to be, I am not a Muslim.
Everything in that land was Yahweh's at the time. From the stones in the desert to Jerusalem and the pinnacle of the temple, all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. They were all his to give.The Temple of Jerusalem is Yahweh's Temple and Jesus' Father's temple
Where?Jesus said: "Moses wrote of me"
Who is the god of this world?The god of this world
When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians, we had both father and mother. - Gospel of PhilipGNOSTIC false gospels, nothing Christian about them...
The LXX basically states the same as the Qumran version. EL / Most High divides the nations between his 70 sons / angels. 70 nations, 70 sons, while the Most High remains ruler of Heaven and Earth. Not 70 nations to 69 sons plus Himself.I don't pretend to be a Bible scholar but is this the point you refer to...
The LXX. has "according to the number of the angels of God," an arbitrary departure from the original text, in accommodation, probably, to the later Jewish notion of each nation having its guardian angel. The Lord's portion is his people (cf. Exodus 15:16; Exodus 19:5; 1 Samuel 10:1; Psalm 78:71). The lot of his inheritance; literally, the cord, etc., the allusion being to the measuring of land by a cord, equivalent to the portion by measure which Jehovah allotted to himself as his inheritance
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-8.htm
Notes section at the bottom
Jesus Dac. I even admitted that I don't have an answer and explained why I don't need one and you still get upset. The Bible is the reference for the thesis that the NT God and OT God are the same. If the thesis is to be valid, the thesis cannot contradict itself. And as I've shown it does. It's however, not up to me to provide answers to every line in the Gospel which is in agreement with the OT. The responsibility of non-contradiction lies with the Bible and those who defend aforementioned thesis.
What did that god do after Numbers 11:18? Is that your question? This is what he did:
Numbers 11:31. And a wind going out from the Lord, taking quails up beyond the sea brought them, and cast them into the camp for the space of one day’s journey, on every side of the camp round about, and they flew in the air two cubits high above the ground.
11:32. The people therefore rising up all that day, and night, and the next day, gathered together of quails, he that did least, ten cores: and they dried them round about the camp.
11:33. As yet the flesh was between their teeth, neither had that kind of meat failed: when behold the wrath of the Lord being provoked against the people, struck them with an exceeding great plague.
11:34. And that place was called, The graves of lust: for there they buried the people that had lusted.
He killed his subjects with a plague before they could even swallow.
Juxtapose that one against what Jesus did:
Matthew 14:15. And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying: This is a desert place, and the hour is now passed: send away the multitudes, that going into the towns, they may buy themselves victuals.
14:16. But Jesus said to them, They have no need to go: give you them to eat.
14:17. They answered him: We have not here, but five loaves, and two fishes.
14:18. Who said to them: Bring them hither to me.
14:19. And when he had commanded the multitude to sit down upon the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes.
14:20. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up what remained, twelve full baskets of fragments.
14:21. And the number of them that did eat, was five thousand men, besides women and children.
And why should I even mirror anything to Jesus. Are the actions of Moses' desert god not bad enough without having to compare them to the perfect man / real God? A supposedly all-powerful being killing his own subjects who have dragged along behind him in the desert for 40 years, because they complained of hunger they didn't have before in Egypt?
You're entire effing post is about how I put things out of context, misquote scripture, fit scripture to support my bias, yadda yadda, man I've never even had a girlfriend who whined like that. Let's check that misquoted put-out-of-context scripture then:
We're gonna read the scripture you've provided together, attentively please, and find out who's misrepresenting it:
Jesus said: "Verily, Verily, I say unto you ..." So far so good, still on the same wave length, I hope? "Moses gave ..." Very important here is the past tense. Well, use of past tense is obvious, but it becomes extremely relevant because of what you should focus on later. Here we go. "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven;" Very interesting. Jesus said the manna they were given by Moses was not from Heaven, even though "God" was with them. "but my Father..." Jesus says "my Father", he doesn't say God just yet to make it clear He's talking about His Father. "but my Father giveth ..." Present tense, not past tense! " ... you the true bread from heaven." Jesus explicitly says that Moses did not (past tense!) give them the bread of heaven. He also explicitly says that His Father is giving them (present tense!) the true bread from Heaven. Nowhere does Jesus say it was His Father who gave them bread in the desert with Moses. Nowhere. You're reading that into it. Next part:
"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."
It can't get any clearer than this. The true bread of God (He says God now, to make it clear His Father is God) is not what Moses gave in the desert, it is Himself. The only logical conclusion here is that the manna Moses or his desert god gave was not Jesus.
Flesh that gave his people the plague before they could even enjoy their meal and killed them.
Jesus Christ did not come down, because Jesus explicitly says He is the bread from Heaven and that neither Moses or his desert god gave the bread from heaven.
The scripture clearly says the opposite of what you say it says and that's how we end up with good Christians ...
... following the Devil. All your mumbo jumbo about Jesus being the manna, Jesus feeding the people in the desert, supporting them like a rock, etc it's just not true!
It is you who are not reading scripture the way you're supposed to.
You're not making sense. These people were starving as they were led into the desert for 40 years. It's easy to side with the account of Jahwists and people who believe in Moses against the people that bloody died in the desert. Might as well believe the writings of Pol Pot groupies saying the Cambodjans had it coming. Ridiculous!
Let's go to the brazen serpent for brevity's sake, because Paul's words can be relativised in context of his proselytism.
Here we clearly see Moses' god commanding his prophet to make a fiery serpent and that the people who worship it shall live.
Let's go to Revelation's account of the deceiver / beast:
13:13. And he did great signs, so that he made also fire to come down from heaven unto the earth, in the sight of men.
(We already know who that is)
13:14. And he seduced them that dwell on the earth, for the signs which were given him to do in the sight of the beast: saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make the image of the beast which had the wound by the sword and lived.
The image of the beast, would that look something like a serpent? Something like this:
Are we seeing the people of Moses bending the knee to an image of the serpent / beast and if they didn't do it they would die? Did you really say that this serpent is Jesus? Am I really reading this about my beloved Christ? Somebody pinch me.
What does this say other than belief in the Son of Man will grant eternal life, while belief in Moses' serpent was required to not die on the spot? Can the difference not be greater?
What an angel. Angel of death perhaps. Tricking his own subjects into submission of the serpent. Was it because that god is evil and vindictive? Why yes, that's exactly what it is. Ockham's razor. In fact, it's outright sadistic, instilling people with a disease and then demanding worship to be healed from that disease. This is one the very distinguishing traits of Satan in all old mythologies!
Tell that to the Israelites.
And I dedicate a whole chapter to the dimension of Justice and what place it has in the greater moral scheme. Justice is a coverup for good and evil, arbitrarily devised by a lawmaker, not inherently universal and transcendent. Only Good is, but for that you need knowledge of good and evil, which the "god of Justice" prohibited Man to attain, so Man would follow his law.
The fact that you and millions of others believe that is exactly the reason why Christianity is in such a bad shape and a tragedy I'm trying to undo.
So? Maybe Elias was an actual prophet, but different than the Elias we know from the OT. Maybe he didn't call fire from heaven. Maybe he didn't send she-bears to tear up 42 children just because they mocked him. Maybe those tales of Elias are manufactured by the scribes and Pharisees to instil fear in their subjects; and the OT version you have in your possession is with 100% certainty a Pharisaic product, don't even doubt that fact.
Maybe there's a hidden meaning in that passage of Matthew. Peter suggests to make 3 tabernacles, but the Father from heaven says "listen to Jesus, in him I am well pleased". What does that mean? Listen to Jesus and not to Moses or Elias? No tabernacles for Moses and Elias? When the disciples throw their face down to the ground and look back up, they only see Jesus. Moses and Elias are gone.
They ask him when Elias will come. But Jesus said Elias already had come but they knew him not, referring to John the Baptist.
There are so many mysteries here that neither you or me can provide a definite answer to, and not in the least will we find the answer in that book that has been tampered with by the very people Jesus warned about; the hypocrites and liars, scribes and Pharisees, descendants of Cain himself.
Dac, you're not thinking clearly. Isn't this verse in exact opposition to the actions of God in the OT? Jesus is not come to destroy lives. The god of Elias destroyed lives. Your reasoning: former God, latter God = same God, while their actions / behaviour could not be more contradictory.
You complain I'm chopping up the Bible to fit my view, but the problem is that my view would stop being coherent if I adopt everything the Bible says. Just see the effects of complete subordination to biblical literalism on your moral code. You would follow a genocidal narcissist if only you believed he was god while you should be rejecting that self-proclaimed god on the basis of being a genocidal narcissist.
It's unbelievable the apologetics you will go to to defend a being killing hundreds of men to prove he is God. Amazing. I can't add anything here because you're not being rational at all. Jesus rebukes his disciples for being of the wrong spirit, while all they were thinking was the same thing Elias and his god actually did, but Elias or his god was not of the wrong spirit? You're making an utter joke of Jesus to insinuate He would apply double standards like that. Shame on you.
Seems like you made the problem worse, cause everything you say about Jesus being the manna, etc, simply isn't true. Still not convinced? Scroll back up and read the verses as often as you need.
And keep your posts succinct and respectful next time, if you want to get any reply at all.
Those two seemingly contradictory opening lines have always stood out to me because this account of numbering the Israelite army has one of my favorite verses and I think God’s statement/actions further down in the narrative lets us know who really it was that moved upon David.Why don't you pick something out of the article, anything, something small, and target it, one at a time? I've been urging you to be more concise anyway so it's a win-win. The Bible's thesis of "god-is-god" is contradictory, it's a stone cold fact you can't get away from. Stop blaming "my personal religion, interpretation, ...". The scribes and Pharisees fucked up, blame them. They missed bits disguising that YHVH the LORD is Satan. Like here in these two accounts of the same story:
2 Samuel 24:1:
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1:
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Am I reading something into this because of bias? Or am I reading what it literally says?
You can also stop acting like I'm "the only one with this made up religion". Yeah, its followers have been exterminated to the last woman and child after 12 centuries of refusing to go away, texts and scriptures destroyed, doctrines buried deep under the ground. Before that we had a theological schism in the early Church that revolved about the place of the creator god with many theologians and Christians on the side I am on right now. You probably would've been in the minority back then.
Well considering you refuse to read the Old Testament with the Holy Spirit guiding you to see the Christian revelations, then of course you say these things. If you were to get Born Again and have the Holy Spirit guide you while reading the Old Testament you would see clearly that the entire Old Testament is foreshadowing of the Messiah and thus Christ. This means simply that the Old Testament IS a book written ABOUT the Christ and hence is a complete Revelation of Him, but again until you are Born Again you will never see it.There are no Christian revelations in a book written when Christ hadn't yet been revealed. The Gospel / The Good News is the Christian Revelation.
I have zero reason to lie concerning it, you can believe me or not, I read it a few months ago when we were having our last back and forth discussion about it.And stop lying, you haven't read it like you say you did.
Why are you so worried about me rebutting your personal religion? I rebut your points in these posts all the time, would you like to tell me nothing that you have said on this form are points you have made in your article? I literally just gave you a rebuttal to your point concerning Ex 32, and summed it up in one sentence, but you refused to read the article that articulates it in a much deeper fashion. And then you complain about me rebutting it, I guess it wasnt rebutted in the manner you want me to rebut it, ok well it still stand rebutted...I haven't seen a single one of your arguments that addresses one of the article's sources, evidences or arguments. You say you don't have time to rebut my article because it would take too long, but all I need is one argument or piece of evidence to be rebutted at a time.
What is there to argue? I have given my interpretation on it, you tell me I am wrong, would you like me to restate the exact same things again? Jesus is the Manna, the Israelites were given Jesus and they complained about it and rejected it. Doesnt it sound an awful lot like what happens in the New Testament when Jesus Himself comes to them? That He isnt good enough so they reject Him? There are so many different Spiritual Applications to these events and the parallels to Christ but you willfully ignore them, or you are literally too Spiritually Blind to accept them or see them. I mean look at you, I quote Jesus, Paul, and others who ALL say that Jesus is what the Old Testament is about and you still REJECT IT!!! Why? Why will you not Repent of your own made up Religions and Ideologies and accept on Faith what JESUS HIMSELF said and then approach the Old Testament with this mindset?Then I refute your interpretation of a scripture to which you simply say, "no I was right" without arguing the points I made.
Lol you must not know them or you wouldnt be making these statements all the time. Im just waiting for you to make a logical reason why Peter Paul Stephen and everyone else is wrong in declaring YHWH is the God of Christ. They all say it, but you know better than them right, lol thats a hoot!!! Do I trust you or them? Tough one, and the point of showing all these Scriptures is so that those who havent already turned their heart from Christ as you have, will be able to see the difference between what you state and what the Word of God states. Like I said Im not here to change your mind, God Himself will have to break that down for you, but there are those here that just read and it needs to be shown them the hypocrisy you preach as opposed to what the Patriarchs, the Disciples and Apostles preached, which is NOT what you say...Instead you're just piling up the tldr's with your proselytism of your standard Christianity everyone already knows, quoting scripture ad nauseam.
You must have not even bothered to open it up, its like 25 small pages, probably would be the equivalent of one of our posts on here. And I did summaries it, El isnt a different God, El is YHWH, as you can see by reading the Old Testament, which I dont believe you have EVER read for yourself. If you understand Polemics of the writers of the Bible they purposefully take other gods and use their titles to incorporate them into YHWH to show that YHWH is Supreme to all of them. To make the conclusion that El is a wholly different God is to undermine the multiple other times the phrase is used specifically to denote YHWH.When I present you specific scripture (2 freaking verses) that I want you to address you pass it on to Michael Heiser, of whom I never said he was more intelligent. He has the advantage because he does this for a living. I don't particularly find him an interesting scholar. I myself can barely sit through 10 minutes of his lectures. Why don't you in your own words explain 4QDEUT instead of throwing 75 pages of literature to your opponent?
LOL wow, ok so you really are willing to think that their overall ideology is that YHWH is Satan and this is a mis step? Theres no possible way it could be the other way around? HAHAH SMH, this is a ridiculous thesis, no one should ever take you serious. If anything the mess up would be they accidentally put that there, not accidentally forgot to take it out. However I reject both, here is what I believe:They missed bits disguising that YHVH the LORD is Satan.
The problem of how a loving God (1 John 4:8) can send a “strong delusion” (2 Thessalonians 2:11), harden someone’s heart (Exodus 9:12), or incite someone to sin (as in the case of David numbering Israel—2 Samuel 24:1), can be compared to God’s work in nature. In one sense, a person could speak of God killing someone who jumps from a 100-story building to his death, because it was God Who set in motion the law of gravity (but He did not force the person over the edge). Some inspired writers wrote from this viewpoint, which was customary in their culture.
Truly, similar to how Pharaoh hardened his heart because God gave him occasion to do such, and similar to how Job suffered because God allowed Satan to strike Job with calamity, God allowed Satan to incite David to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). Israel suffered as a direct result of Satan’s workings in the life of King David, which God allowed. Thus, both God and Satan legitimately could be said to have incited the king—but in different ways (and for different reasons).
Bias...Am I reading something into this because of bias? Or am I reading what it literally says?
No I wont stop because it is the Truth. You have created your own personal interpretation on everything, even Gnostics wouldnt accept most of what you propose. One minute your siding with Gnostics the next your completely rejecting basic Gnostic tenets, for example all creation is Evil. That is very basic Gnostic tenet, you dont adhere to this, youve created your own version and now want to tell both Christians that they are wrong in their beliefs, and would like to tell Gnostics that they dont understand Gnoticism correctly. The method you have chosen to do this is by elevating yourself into a position where you believe you have more understanding or better or wiser understanding than both adherents and feel its your mission to guide all into an understanding that literally you ALONE posses out of all of Human History. You and AS are identical in this methodology, save he believes himself to also be an expert in Islam where I dont see you trying to make Christianity and Islam mix.You can also stop acting like I'm "the only one with this made up religion".
Lol no that is just your wishful thinking and hopefulness in your made up Revisionist History. If Gnosticism was the Truth it would have been catapulted to the top and would be the dominate ideology. Heres what I find hilarious, your Gnostic god is a weak and pitiful god, it cant make sure to preserve its writings and get its Truth out to the masses. This weak and pathetic god let the world destroy it, burn it, bury it, and murder it off by your own admission. It has no power, it has no control, it has no ability to withstand anything. Its so lame it cant give its followers a True Gospel that can be used as a baseline of Evidence to hold other Gospels up to in order to determine if what they say are True or False. Look at you man, you cant even give me a basic default line of what parts of the New Testament are True and False, the same goes for your false weak god.You probably would've been in the minority back then.
Lol so you want me to take the words of the People who rejected Gods Son, that they dont believe that the God of the NT is YHWH? Thats a hoot, of course they dont accept that, if they did they would have to accept Jesus as their Messiah. They would have to accept that they killed their Messiah and the Son of God. They refuse to now, but one day they will, it even says it in their own Text:Heck, 99% of rabbis are on the side that says the God of the NT is not YHVH, which makes your depiction of my position nothing more than a cheap caricature.
No if you worshiped the God of Christ you would worship YHWH, instead you call the Father Satan..What a ridiculous analogy. The Gospel is my Bible and the God of Christ is my God.
The Old Testament IS Christian Scripture it is literally all about Jesus Christ, He is the Angel in the Wilderness, He is the Manna from Heaven, He is the Rock from which water came, He is the Messiah all the Prophets and Law foretold, He is the literal embodiment of the entire Sacrificial System and Culture of Israel. He is found in EVERY Holy Day, He is found in every story, He is found in every single thing that has to do with the Old Testament, yet you absolutely throw all of it away!!With embracing all of Christian scripture I mean I don't throw away entire gospels and books like you do.
Lol I see what you did there, how ridiculous again, funny how you didnt even bother to address what was written. Why does Jesus call the House of YHWH, His Fathers house? Try answering this time brother. As for your assertion, if the Old Testament was about Satan then why is it Jesus says this when Satan offers him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor?Everything in that land was Yahweh's at the time. From the stones in the desert to Jerusalem and the pinnacle of the temple, all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. They were all his to give.
Everything he wrote basically, I mean I have shown you mutliple places in Scripture where they wrote of Jesus, why do you need me to keep showing you, why dont you Trust Jesus and then search the Scriptures yourself asking Him to reveal Himself to you? I guess you think Jesus is a liar, or John is a liar... Here is a list of dozens of Prophecies Christ fulfilled which make ZERO sense for Him to have done if the God of the Old Testament is the Devil.Where?
The one that blinds you from seeing the Truth:Who is the god of this world?
Why should I care what a person 200 years after Jesus who had zero affiliation with any of the Disciples or Apostles has to say? Especially when they are linked to the Heretic Valentinus? No thanks, I have the Word of God that I know for a FACT is Divine and when I compare what that false not really a gospel say to the Word of God, there are marked contradictions, one is True one is False. This garbage is False...Late-third-century Gnostic writing; one copy found at Nag Hammadi; not actually a gospel, but a collection of brief excerpts from other Gnostic writings; summarizes the views of followers of Gnostic leader Valentinus. Unlike many Gnostic documents, Gospel of Philip does not claim to have been written by an apostle; the book is called by his name simply because he is the only apostle mentioned in it.
Gospel of Mary Magdalene
Again why do I want to take this garbage over the New Testament? None of the Marys were Disciples or Apostles plain and simple this forgery wants to say Magdalene (which we cant be clear it WAS her because it just says Mary) was Jesus greatest Disciple. She wasnt, Jesus picked the 12, then they cast lots for the replacement of Judas as recorded in Scripture. So should I trust and believe this garbage written over 100 years after Christ that contradict the Bible or the Bible?Though much is unclear regarding the background of the Gospel of Mary, it is clear by the time period of its writing that it was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other Mary from the New Testament period. It was written two centuries after the New Testament. Further, unlike the New Testament documents, there are only two early Greek copies and one Coptic copy, each with missing texts.
The ideas of secret knowledge, alternative stories regarding biblical events, and mysterious statements about God, good and evil, and the afterlife regularly contradict or add additional material than exists in the New Testament narratives.
Gospel of Truth
Amen! There is the one guy who destroys this entire false gospel, his name is Irenaeus, Ill stick to his reviews of this garbage, which is that it contradicts the Gospels handed down by the Apostles and is blasphemous. You however want to accept the blasphemy and reject the Truth...But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist. Indeed their audacity has gone so far that they entitle their recent composition the Gospel of Truth, though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the apostles, and so no Gospel of theirs is free from blasphemy. For if what they produce is the Gospel of Truth, and is different from those which the apostles handed down to us, those who care to can learn how it can be show from the Scriptures themselves that [then] what is handed down from the apostles is not the Gospel of Truth. (3.11.9)
Your rebuttal was "The Most High is YHVH"? That's not a rebuttal. That's just stating the opposite of the general point in my article without disproving or arguing any of it.I literally just gave you a rebuttal to your point concerning Ex 32, and summed it up in one sentence, but you refused to read the article that articulates it in a much deeper fashion.
You're giving the answer here. Yes, YHWH is given titles and traits of other gods to establish his superiority over them. That's exactly what happened in other mythologies where lesser deities grew into the heads of pantheons.If you understand Polemics of the writers of the Bible they purposefully take other gods and use their titles to incorporate them into YHWH to show that YHWH is Supreme to all of them. To make the conclusion that El is a wholly different God is to undermine the multiple other times the phrase is used specifically to denote YHWH.
This is about the Most High, I agree. But the Most High is EL, not YHWH. Melchizedek is priest of the Most High EL, not YHVH. I don't even know why you think this is proof that it's YHVH.To make the conclusion that El is a wholly different God is to undermine the multiple other times the phrase is used specifically to denote YHWH.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
There you go, very clear and blatant Scripture to prove my point, YHWH the Most High God!! EL is YHWH according to Scriptures, so your first problem is you have chosen to separate EL from YHWH, when as anyone who reads and studies the Old Testament knows, EL is YHWH. Same God...
See how you've not read the article? lolI agreed that this should be rendered the Sons of God, and that is pertaining to the Divine Council of which YHWH is the head of, not some other god. Ps 82 explains this in more detail:
Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
This is clearly YHWH speaking as God, and He stands in the congregation of the mighty or the Divine Council and He is judging them according to how unjust they are.
Sigh.You have created your own personal interpretation on everything, even Gnostics wouldnt accept most of what you propose. One minute your siding with Gnostics the next your completely rejecting basic Gnostic tenets, for example all creation is Evil. That is very basic Gnostic tenet, you dont adhere to this, youve created your own version
Same reasoning as "Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one!" Jesus' God is everyone's God, right? Regardless of their faith in Him? If I make a child I'm his father regardless of who that child thinks is his father, right? Thus the statement "Israel, our God" is logically not false, since Jesus' God is Israel's God, even though Israel had been worshiping a different one.Why does Jesus call the House of YHWH, His Fathers house?
Why do you expect Jesus to explicitly say Yahweh when talking of or to the Devil, when you don't expect Jesus to explicitly say it when talking of or to his Father? Nowhere in any Christian manuscript is Yahweh mentioned by name. Jesus could've said: "yeah, Yawheh, El Elyon, El Shaddai, Yahu, ... that's my pops. I call him Yayo". Yet you expect him to say it when he's the devil. Pff, whatever.Does He say YHWH is the Devil get away!!! No
Sounds like El Elyon to be honest. Trust me, I'm a good judge of character.From whose mouth does the Word come from that Jesus says we live by? Oh yeah thats right, YHWH's mouth
Okay, show me one.Here is a Book that goes over EVERYTHING Moses wrote and how ALL of it reflects Christ:
You ask me that question and I'll identify him in a dozen mythologies, by name. If Satan is the God of this World, who is he? What name is he hiding behind?Who is the god of this world?
Again, why do you care if I argue these points exactly? I show you literally that YHWH is called EL and El is called YHWH but you want to act as tho I am not addressing what youve said?Your rebuttal was "The Most High is YHVH"? That's not a rebuttal. That's just stating the opposite of the general point in my article without disproving or arguing any of it.
Polemics anyone?El Elyon (as in Qumran) is not a name for YHVH because it is dated to pre-Mosaic times. It is an Ugaritic (ie. pre-Hebrew) name who in the Ugaritic texts (again, predating the Pentateuch) is the head of the divine council and divides the nations between his 70 sons, each son becoming the king of that nation while El remains ruler of the heavens. Again, the Ugaritic texts predate Moses' books, the name El Elyon predates Moses, and in Moses' book (the Qumran version) it says Yahweh was given Israel by El Elyon. In the Masoretic version more than a 1,000 years later, Yahweh is no longer a son, but he's the Most High keeping Israel to himself.
Lol right not relevant because it negates your belief system? He uses the whole of the Bible and basic understanding of multiple different scriptures to show that this ideology is the framework of how YHWH the Most High operates. If you were to read the whole of the Old Testament instead of tiny bits and pieces in hopes to assert your made up Religion you would understand what he and I are trying to get across to you, but apparently you care little to nothing to see what we are saying, oh well...I just read the first 10 pages of Heiser's article and it's unbelievable. A scientist's job when studying a problem is to look at it from as many angles and perspectives as required to see which one coherently explains it. He doesn't even consider the perspective that Yahweh is one of El Elyon's sons. He simply uses Genesis 10-11 as a backdrop to explain Israel is not counted as one of the 70 nations, so none of the Most High's sons get Israel ergo ... Yahweh is the Most High! Then he simply goes on to try and prove how the correct reading in Qumran of the "sons of God" doesn't necessarily mean the Israelite religion was polytheistic. Not really relevant here.
Why do you keep asking me to do something you clearly have the ability to? I linked you his website and how to contact him, if you are so desperate to have him critique your invented theology, why not man up and ask him yourself? Here is another explanation of how Scholars look at the Ugaritic writings and the surrounding Religions as an influence or opposition to the Biblical Writers.. You should give him a shout and ask him: "Hey Heiser, re Deut 32:8-9, what if Yahweh isn't El but one of his 70 sons and Israel is one of the 70 nations? There's this crazy guy who has an article that claims that bs."
I hope you take the time to read that, it will give you a much deeper understanding of why the Hebrews incorporated Ugarit literature into their writings. Also the idea that you suppose is blatantly nonsensical if we simply grasp that you claim YHWH is Baal, yet the Bible makes it explicitly clear that YHWH and Baal are opposite Gods, one False and one True. Anyway read that and learn how Jesus quotes from the Old Testament to claim Himself Divine, the Second Power in Heaven, from a scene borrowed in Ugarit literature. If you understand what Jesus is saying in that verse, then either you MUST throw away your personal religion or now MUST say Jesus is the Devil...First of all, it's important to understand that the biblical writers, though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, followed the ordinary forms of literature that were current in their day when they wrote. If, for example, the biblical writer was describing a covenant treaty between God and his people, his description conforms in style to covenant treaties known elsewhere in the ancient world. To depart from this style would have seemed strange to the ancient readers: “What kind of covenant treaty is this? Didn’t this guy know how to write one?”
. Just as we wouldn't write a letter home to Mom and put footnotes in it, or jot down a recipe and lace it with legal mumbo-jumbo, so the biblical writers wrote using the literary conventions and forms that would be expected by their audience.
Biblical writers didn't just use the forms of contemporary non-inspired literature, they were also influenced by the literature itself.
Paul quotes from pagan Greek poets. The psalmists and prophets borrow vocabulary and paraphrase material from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Syrian literature. Jude quotes a book from the Pseudepigrapha (ancient writings that falsely claim authorship by a biblical character). The people of biblical times knew the quoted material wasn't inspired, but it had meaning for them and their audience.
Religious Context. The religion of Ugarit and the religion of ancient Israel were not the same, but there were some striking overlaps. For example, the name of the ultimate divine authority at Ugarit was El, one of the names of the God of Israel (e.g., Gen 33:20). El was described as an aged god with white hair, seated on a throne. However, at Ugarit, El was sovereign, but another god ran things on earth for El as his vizier. That god’s name was Baal, a name quite familiar to anyone who has read the Old Testament. At Ugarit Baal was known by several titles: “king of the gods,” “the Most High,” “Prince Baal” (baal zbl), and—most importantly for our discussion—“the Rider on the Clouds.”
Baal’s position as “king of the gods” in Ugarit, Israel’s northern neighbor, helps explain the “Baal problem” in the Old Testament. Jereboam’s religion in the northern kingdom borrowed from Baal worship, and it soon began to look like there was no difference, or if there was a difference, they were so close that worshipping one or the other was just theological hair-splitting. This is what prophets like Elijah had to contend with. The people had no Bible. They had only the prophets and their words. When a prophet wasn’t around to set the record straight, it was easy to just do what the neighbors were doing—especially if your king didn’t care, or actually preferred it that way.
Given this state of affairs, it's not surprising that sometimes in the course of their preaching and writing, the prophets counted on familiarity with Baal to make their case that it was Yahweh, not Baal, who was the heavenly king. We know this was the case, since certain Old Testament books actually quote from the Ugaritic religious texts, most notably the one that modern scholars have called the Baal Cycle. Whereas the Baal Cycle would give Baal credit for things like sending rain and making the crops grow, the prophets would credit those things to Yahweh. The showdown at Carmel (geographically close to Ugarit) is a case in point. God had withheld rain and Elijah challenged the rain giver to a duel, which God won in glorious fashion (1 Kings 17-18).
The Bible can only be fully understood when properly situated within its ancient context..
Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel.
Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh.
Until we hit Daniel 7, that is. You know the scene, but you likely don’t know the full context, since Ugaritic provides that for us:
9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.
The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:
Ugarit / Baal Cycle Daniel 7
(A) El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council. (A) The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (cf. Ezekiel 1). Like Ugaritic El, he is white haired and aged (“ancient”).
(B) El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yamm in battle. (B) Yahweh-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed.
(C) Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting. (C) The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He rules at the right hand of God.
The striking parallels are especially noteworthy given that this is the only time in the Old Testament where a second personage other than Yahweh is described as “coming with/upon the clouds” (the preposition in Aramaic can be translated either way). The intent of the author to describe this “son of man” with a title reserved only for Yahweh was clear by virtue of how the scene followed the Baal literature — the literary cycle whose central character, Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title!
The Jewish audience reading Daniel understood the implications — the prophet Daniel was describing a second power in heaven — a second being at the level of Yahweh to whom Yahweh himself granted authority. Although we naturally think of the idea of a godhead as distinctly Christian, we have evidence here that the seeds of the idea are found in the Hebrew Scriptures. It’s no accident that Jewish theological writing during the Intertestamental period is filled with references to the “second power in heaven” and attempts to figure out how to articulate what was going on in heaven in light of monotheism. Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel. Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position! For Christians the answer was obvious.
It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself while on earth was “son of man.” The term means two things: (1) human being (Jesus enjoyed being human!), and (2) the deity figure to whom all authority was given. The latter usage is perfectly evident in Matthew 26, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas — someone who knew his Old Testament — waiting to fulfill his destiny on the cross. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7:
63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (ESV)
By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds. That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ reaction:
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.” (ESV)
The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus of Nazareth would claim to be the incarnation of the second power. What most of us might think is an odd answer, or even a deliberate deflection of Caiaphas’ demand, is the exact opposite. Jesus could not have been more blunt. He was the “second deity” of Daniel 7.
The Jews of the first century understood this well. They knew their Bible. The idea of a godhead was not a Christian innovation; it is rooted in Israelite religion and Jewish theology, and was acceptable doctrine for Jews until the second century A.D. when, in response to the worship of Jesus by Jews converting to Christianity, the rabbis declared the second power idea a heresy for faithful Jews.
Who would have suspected? We are able to see the beginnings of the Christian doctrine of the godhead in the Hebrew Bible with the help of the context supplied by the literature of Ugarit.
Are you blind?This is about the Most High, I agree. But the Most High is EL, not YHWH. Melchizedek is priest of the Most High EL, not YHVH. I don't even know why you think this is proof that it's YHVH.
Lol I mean you do realize that that document is almost exclusively made up Old Testament quotes correct? How on Earth can this in any way bring merit to your ideology? All you did was just prove that the Old Testament is replete with Prophecies about Jesus. You are winning my argument for me.What book in the Old Testament can compare to this in terms of clear prophecies of our Saviour? And in such a short amount of text.
I have read the freaking article, Im not rebutting it, like I have said like 20 times, I dont remember everything you wrote in it, it was 2 months ago and then years prior.See how you've not read the article? lol
Chapter 7: Baal, son of El addresses the exact same psalm and the exact same verses. First I thought you were rebutting something straight from the article (to my surprise!), but based on your argumentation, you clearly weren't.
Then why oh why have you admitted multiple times in the past that the thesis you have brought up isnt something that pretty much ANY other Gnostics would accept? These are out of your own mouth, but when I make the statements that you have created your own religion that most Gnostics would agree with you tend to sigh and get defensive. You admitted it just take ownership of it, you have now created the one true religion in your mind...Sigh.
Are you freaking kidding me? Wow no, Jesus would not be saying YHWH is our God if YHWH was the Devil. And that is what the Scriptures say over and over, Jesus quotes the Old Testament Scriptures about Himself (like you just did) that specifically show that YHWH is God, the YHWH sent Him, that He is the fulfillment of YHWH ect ect ect...Jesus' God is everyone's God, right? Regardless of their faith in Him? If I make a child I'm his father regardless of who that child thinks is his father, right? Thus the statement "Israel, our God" is logically not false, since Jesus' God is Israel's God, even though Israel had been worshiping a different one.
Same with house of God. A house of God is a house of Jesus' Father, whether or not the people of that house are worshiping something else. If Jesus lived today He could walk in a synagogue or mosque and say the same thing without being false.
Dude again seriously? Jesus quotes YHWH against the Devil that is my point!! Why on Earth would Jesus be appealing to the Devil in Scriptures as a defense of the Devil in His face? Of course you have no answer for this because simple logic tells us Jesus would NEVER call on the Devil to fight the Devil...Why do you expect Jesus to explicitly say Yahweh when talking of or to the Devil, when you don't expect Jesus to explicitly say it when talking of or to his Father? Nowhere in any Christian manuscript is Yahweh mentioned by name. Jesus could've said: "yeah, Yawheh, El Elyon, El Shaddai, Yahu, ... that's my pops. I call him Yayo". Yet you expect him to say it when he's the devil. Pff, whatever.
Even tho it literally say YHWH, yeah buddy not only are you a bad judge of character you lack basic reading comprehension apparently...Sounds like El Elyon to be honest. Trust me, I'm a good judge of character.
Why show you one Art? I listed 300+ Prophecies, I showed you that every Holy Day, the Temple itself, the garments of the Priest, ect ect ect all reflects Christ, why dont you just read for yourself? Why do I have to hold your hand and walk you thru it? And what is the point you are a hypocrite about all of this anyhow, just as you deny deny deny Jesus being in the Old Testament and then point me to a piece of literature that quotes verbatim the Old Testament and ask me where in the Old Testament there are Scriptures pointing to Jesus.Okay, show me one.
Many, for example, Monad or Sophia or any titled Aeon for starters, what we do know he is not is YHWH...You ask me that question and I'll identify him in a dozen mythologies, by name. If Satan is the God of this World, who is he? What name is he hiding behind?
Did God (EL) present himself as YHVH to Abraham? When did "God" introduce himself as YHVH? Did he not tell Moses that he did not present himself as YHVH to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob? Did he not make himself known as YHVH for the first time, to Moses?Are you blind?
22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
YHWH, EL aka YWHW the Most High God, YHWH and EL are the same God out right stated in this text. The God of Melchizedek is the same as Abram, and we see CLEARLY that the God they are Worshiping is YHWH, The Most High God...
I'm going to say this for the LAST TIME. Remember it if you want to move forward. The OT is not written by Satan, it is not written by God. It is mythology written down by scribes who have blurred the lines, muddied the waters between:How can a book about and written by Satan continually have hundres of Prophecies about Jesus?
It's not in defense of my ideology. It's in response to your question why the scribes didn't leave out all references to Jesus. This text is by far more prophetic than any other text in the OT, so why is it not in the Masoretic version? Why do Christians not know this text?I mean you do realize that that document is almost exclusively made up Old Testament quotes correct? How on Earth can this in any way bring merit to your ideology?
Lol, this is priceless. "Did I not just quote ... ?" Man, that passage has been in the article for 5 YEARS!!! And I'm saying it's EL who reigns in the Divine Council first, and it's BAAL / YAHWEH who rebels against him and takes his place after defeating the sea serpent. And all the reasons why it is YHVH (scriptural, archeological, mythological, comparative, linguistic, etc) who takes EL's place are given in the preceding and succeeding chapters.Belial who rebelled against God's precepts" = Belial could be Baal, son of God. Baal: Semitic for LORD.
But thats not at all what its saying, its literally describing the exact passages we are talking about, when the sons of God rebelled against YHWH, I have quoted you the scene this is drawing from:
Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
As for that which he s[aid, Howlong will you] judge unjustly and showpartiality to the wicked? Selah (Psalms lxxxii, 2), its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot [who] rebelled by turning away from the precepts of God to
This is literally saying everything I am saying man, how do you not grasp this? Didnt I just quote this to you? Yes I did, wow...
Where the F did I say that? I believe Jesus is of the line of Melchisedek. I believe Melchisedek is priest of the MOST HIGH. I believe Abraham's God was the MOST HIGH (although I favour allegorical interpretation of Genesis). I believe Jesus (the MAN) is the SON of the MOST HIGH (EL). NOT YHVH!Also there is no need to mention Melchizedek to me, I have throughly studied the Old Testament, and I know that he is either outright Christ Himself, or he is a prototype of Christ, I mean you know Paul mentions him in relation to Jesus correct? But clearly Paul shouldnt be doing this, as the God of Abraham, is the Devil according to you:
Jesus is probably quoting EL against the Devil.Dude again seriously? Jesus quotes YHWH against the Devil that is my point!!
The entire OT is a struggle between EL (the Most High, father of the man Jesus) and Baal (Yahweh). The scribes have merged two, at first co-operative entities, later two competing entities, into one. They put all scripture in a jar together with EL and Baal, they gave it a good shake et voilà: The Old Testament.Of course you have no answer for this because simple logic tells us Jesus would NEVER call on the Devil to fight the Devil...
How - Where does it literally say YHVH?Even tho it literally say YHWH
I asked you to show me one example of what Jesus said that "Moses wrote of Him". It's a lot easier to show me 1 than 300+.Why show you one Art?
Eesh ... Awful guess. Where is the Monad or Sophia in the Semitic pantheons? Or do the Semitic pantheons don't have a devil? What happened to Nimrod? Are you saying Sophia is Nimrod in disguise? Wow, what a revelation! lolMany, for example, Monad or Sophia or any titled Aeon for starters, what we do know he is not is YHWH...
After all this time, you are finally entering the actual debate. I find it ironic though, that you come up with an explanation of something you discarded completely before, telling me that I have to go with that explanation when I considered that explanation .... ummmm ... 6-7 years ago.First of all, it's important to understand that the biblical writers, though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, followed the ordinary forms of literature that were current in their day when they wrote. If, for example, the biblical writer was describing a covenant treaty between God and his people, his description conforms in style to covenant treaties known elsewhere in the ancient world. To depart from this style would have seemed strange to the ancient readers: “What kind of covenant treaty is this? Didn’t this guy know how to write one?”
. Just as we wouldn't write a letter home to Mom and put footnotes in it, or jot down a recipe and lace it with legal mumbo-jumbo, so the biblical writers wrote using the literary conventions and forms that would be expected by their audience.
Biblical writers didn't just use the forms of contemporary non-inspired literature, they were also influenced by the literature itself.
Paul quotes from pagan Greek poets. The psalmists and prophets borrow vocabulary and paraphrase material from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Syrian literature. Jude quotes a book from the Pseudepigrapha (ancient writings that falsely claim authorship by a biblical character). The people of biblical times knew the quoted material wasn't inspired, but it had meaning for them and their audience.
Religious Context. The religion of Ugarit and the religion of ancient Israel were not the same, but there were some striking overlaps. For example, the name of the ultimate divine authority at Ugarit was El, one of the names of the God of Israel (e.g., Gen 33:20). El was described as an aged god with white hair, seated on a throne. However, at Ugarit, El was sovereign, but another god ran things on earth for El as his vizier. That god’s name was Baal, a name quite familiar to anyone who has read the Old Testament. At Ugarit Baal was known by several titles: “king of the gods,” “the Most High,” “Prince Baal” (baal zbl), and—most importantly for our discussion—“the Rider on the Clouds.”
Baal’s position as “king of the gods” in Ugarit, Israel’s northern neighbor, helps explain the “Baal problem” in the Old Testament.Jereboam’s religion in the northern kingdom borrowed from Baal worship, and it soon began to look like there was no difference, or if there was a difference, they were so close that worshipping one or the other was just theological hair-splitting. This is what prophets like Elijah had to contend with. The people had no Bible. They had only the prophets and their words. When a prophet wasn’t around to set the record straight, it was easy to just do what the neighbors were doing—especially if your king didn’t care, or actually preferred it that way.
...
Some know. It is hidden in plain sight.
True but what I just put above is.The Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible for obvious reasons.
.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. --- Real Jesus"8And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them." - Real Jesus