Yet in the same book, it shows Jesus with two prophets (Elijah and Moses) of this God who is not the father of Jesus? He also, later in this book, calls himself a son of David? At the end of the book he says the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is God of the living and not God of the dead? And theres even more where that came from. But this is exactly what I was referring to about picking one verse and ignoring others. Even if I went with the notion that those verses above are speaking about another god, we'd still have more verses to go over that connects Jesus and the God of Israel. But I guess if we can whip up an explanation that explains it away, they're not relevant..
Re Elias and Moses. When Elias, Moses and Jesus were seen together and the people proposed to build tabernacles for each of them, what did the Father say?
17:5. And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo a voice out of the cloud, saying:
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.
17:6. And the disciples hearing fell upon their face, and were very much afraid.
17:7. And Jesus came and touched them: and said to them: Arise, and fear not.
17:8. And they lifting up their eyes, saw no one,
but only Jesus.
The Father says Jesus is His beloved Son, not Elias or Moses. He says "Hear ye Him (Jesus)", do not hear Elias or Moses. They lifted up their eyes and saw
Jesus, not Elias or Moses. Powerful symbolism here.
When the Samaritans didn't receive Jesus, John and James suggested to command fire to come down from the heavens as Elias did.
Luke:
54 And when his disciples James and John saw
this, they said, Lord,
wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said,
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
What spirit is Jesus referring to? The Holy Spirit? The Spirit of God? If so, what spirit did Elias have when calling fire down from heaven? And if it wasn't in the name of God, then who?
Re: Son of David. Nowhere does Jesus say He is the Son of David (show me where if I'm wrong). Every reference to the Son of David is either to Joseph or a proclamation made by others (because their beliefs dictate the mashiach will be a son of David), never Jesus himself. Here's what Jesus actually had to say about being the Son of David in the same gospel:
22:41. And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them,
22:42. Saying:
What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him:
David’s.
22:43. He saith to them:
How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying:
22:44. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
22:45.
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
22:46. And no man was able to answer him a word: neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
If we are to take anything out of these scriptures, sincerely and in full respect of what they're saying, what is it? My explanation doesn't "explain away", it simply explains a different interpretation that is yours to dissect for inaccuracies.
Again with the semantics. I dont get into those type of discussions.. So again, the things I mentioned defiles people if consumed. Yet, this shouldnt happen according to your literal interpretation of what Jesus said. I should be able to take drugs, drink soda, eat all types of unhealthy food and not be defiled as long as good comes out of my mouth. Which of course, isnt scientific let alone realistic....
It's not a semantic debate. You add "body" to make it fit your view. Jesus didn't refer to body with Matt 15, but the human being.
Matt:
15:18. But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man.
15:19. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
15:20. These are the things that defile a man.
These things that defile a man are not food, so why make "clean-unclean" categories in food?
Your real you is not the body that you've been given in this world; you will receive a new body when you raise. For this you need to feed your spirit, not your body, "gratify the desires of the spirit, not the flesh". A man who turns spiritual will avoid gluttony. Someone who stuffs himself with Big Macs from breakfast to dinner is undoubtedly spiritually ill. But to start making a distinction between beef and pork based on whether or not the animal has cloven hooves and ruminates doesn't play any relevance to whether or not a person is spiritual.
Seems pretty selective. And I mean in regards to you assuming that that was an all time ordinance and not just them, for that night, taking bread/wine in remembrance of him. What exactly leads you to believe that thats an all time/forever commandment?
How often will the Messiah come and offer His life for humanity? Let's assume we agree it's a one time event, the eternity of this commemoration would be implicit. But I have already given the most powerful argument in the fact that He changed passover forever without having condemned passover or the people celebrating it. That's a supernatural achievement I would say, to give a holiday of believers an entirely new meaning and have them celebrate it according to that new meaning in all corners of the world.
If this isn't convincing enough for you then there's no point in arguing. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Because the context in the sentence, nor of the chapter, suggests such a thing. And then in verse 16 he says he will not eat of the Passover again UNTIL (meaning he will again) it(?) is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And then when we look at it, christians dont even eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him on passover lol. They dont even do the things he said to do in remembrance of him as a new holy day, so Im not sure how your point is being made even if he did change things...Even in what he said, that is a very weak way to say "dont follow the original Passover" anymore. Which is exactly what the biblical Jesus is if we try to make him into the gnostic version. Weak. And thats coming from personal experience
What do you mean "personal experience"?
You call it weakness to convert the entire world without destroying the people's beliefs in the lair of Satan himself?
Well if I remember correctly, you told me that you dont quote from the gnostic gospels because people wont believe what you have to say based on it coming from the gnostic gospels. Or something of that sort.
So "hiding" is probably a strong word to use. Its not that serious I dont think. But I do think that the gnostic gospels make your point alot clearer than choosing one verse to read at face value and another where we have to rearrange the meaning received to make it fit a certain conclusion. The bible doesnt make your point clear enough without having to ignore certain things, or rearrange the meaning of certain things. But if you were to quote the gnostic gospels, that would make your thought process a little more clearer to follow. Imo of course, but this is all I was saying. Didnt mean to suggest it in a manner as if you were being deceptive if thats how you took it.
My point is to show that the gnostic gospels and the canonical gospels are not contradictory, but complementary. Of course I have to show canonical scripture to support that and I do it as often as I can. Also, if I claim that Satan is hiding behind God in a book, the best way to prove it is from that book itself, not from another adversarial or heretical book where that isn't a secret. That the Bible isn't my strongest piece of evidence is evident, since my pov says Christianity has been hijacked by Judaizers and thus the Christian scriptures have been as well. Not easy when debating people who don't believe in the Judaization of Christianity at all, or worse, think Christianity has been de-Judaized.
