My take on the Trinity

[The Plain Jane]

Hello. Long time, no post.

I have in times past I have called RanRan a heretic, and I wouldn't do that to him today, because my own ideas about the Trinity are heretical - all branches of Christendom would be right in calling me a heretic and I expect them too.

But I want to bounce these ideas on more than just pastors who passionately tell me how wrong I am. I'm not looking for a debate, and this will likely be my only post. But before I settle on a doctrine concerning the Trinity, I'm going to read the "other" testament writings - the ones that didn't make the canon. My Lutheran pastor was kind enough to hunt a book down and give to me. :smile:

But here is my thoughts so far, and I would like to hear especially from Lutherans on this, as it has Lutheran like quailities. (You'll see what I mean in a minute.)

It's actually really brief.

Before I begin, I will state that I am in full agreement still with the Aposltes Creed and Nicene Creed as far as I can see. The Athanasian Creed - no.

God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.

God the Son. Incaret in the person of Jesus Christ. He is half God and half man. He has - and everyone but Catholics would agree - a sinner for a mother and God for a "father." In most religions, that means the product is half man and half god, not 100% man and 100% God.

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.

He died phsyically for the sins of the world. And was resurrected phsyically after three days.

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene. Two human parents, she is 100% human. I personally believe that she is the deciciple Jesus loved in the Book of John. I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity? In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.

[[Because of recent experiences I've been through, conspiecy ideas are not something I easily turn away. Am I saying the church is intentionally hiding something? No, but I think Christians will do themselves a service to at least think about what Dan Brown and others are trying to convey.]]

In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.

She had seven demons. And how many days is there in a week? Seven days. Through God the Son all things were made, and since she is one flesh with Christ, through her as well all things were made, including Eve. Actually, I don't think the Scriptures say Jesus created anything. It says through Him, not by Him. I'm open to correction about this.

Now, I see the problems with God the Daughter. It says the Spirit was poured out a Pentecost. I know there are problems with Mary being the Spirit. But is it possible for the Spirit to be in two places at once, and to take on different forms? Who knows?

In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister. Which makes since to therefore think of the Daughter and the Son as the only begotten children of God.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.


So what do you think? Correct me, that's fine, but don't look for me to respond; I'm not in a position to. I just want to know what others think of this. I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church. Certian events in my life led me to this, and I'm sorry if I'm not making sense to not just blindly trust the church. Ok, I'm going to stop rambling now. :smile:

[Zxcv Bnm]

In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.
Then what do you think about the LORD consuming Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, with fire because they offered unauthorized fire (Leviticus 10:1-3)?
How about when God struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant because the oxen stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6-7)?
Does this make God the Father less than 100% divine?
I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity? In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.
There is no reference that Jesus ever got married -- in any historical source.
And, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5)
Had Jesus married He would have been mentioned here in 1 Corinthians 9:5.
Actually, I don't think the Scriptures say Jesus created anything. It says through Him, not by Him. I'm open to correction about this.
"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17) see also Hebrews 1.

In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister. Which makes since to therefore think of the Daughter and the Son as the only begotten children of God.
The Bible presents God's people as the bride of Jesus Christ. The Bible also presents God's people as the children of God.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.
Where do you get this from?
Jesus died for our sins: "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Romans 4:25)
Jesus is the way to eternal life: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Jesus is the only way: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12)

[The Plain Jane]

I'm surprised this thread didn't get more replies than it did.

Then what do you think about the LORD consuming Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, with fire because they offered unauthorized fire (Leviticus 10:1-3)?
How about when God struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant because the oxen stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6-7)?
Does this make God the Father less than 100% divine?
That is a very good point. I didn't mean for my presentation of the Trinity to be condescending. I subject my views concerning the Trinity with humility. I do this because I realize that if I'm wrong, my salvation could be at risk.

There is no reference that Jesus ever got married -- in any historical source.
And, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5)
Had Jesus married He would have been mentioned here in 1 Corinthians 9:5.
What Scripture makes this so? I mean, how do you come to that conclusion? I understand that lack of mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened. Again, I do not put the church above coverups because of my own experiences. I believe it is possible the church is covering up something. I also realize I very well could be wrong, again, with my salvation at stake.

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17) see also Hebrews 1.
I stand corrected. I had forgotten this Scripture. Thank you.

The Bible presents God's people as the bride of Jesus Christ. The Bible also presents God's people as the children of God.
Scriptures please. It will be a while before I can respond, I'm only online on the weekends.

Where do you get this from?
Jesus died for our sins: "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Romans 4:25)
Jesus is the way to eternal life: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Jesus is the only way: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12)
I know that is a little extreme to say Mary died spiritually for the sins of the world. Just something that popped into my head like the rest of my views concerning the Trinity.

Thank you kindly for replying.

[Nang]

Hello. Long time, no post.

Welcome back. I hope you are well.





God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.

The only time God the Father walked the earth, was with Adam before the fall. After the fall, God removed His presence as judgment against all mankind. Jacob indeed wrestled with an angel, but that angel was a theophany of the pre-incarnate God the Son. There were more than one pre-incarnate appearances of God the Son; for example, the angel that discussed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham, was God the Son in angelic form.

"Theophany" is a theological term . . .look it up.

Actually, Scripture accredits creation to all three Persons of the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The entire Godhead was responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth, but especially glory is given to God the Son, ". . for by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth; visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16

It is never successful to attempt to separate the Persons of the Godhead; for when the Son of God created; He represented the Father, and is the Maker of all things through the power of the Holy Spirit. Creation was not by One and not the Others.

God the Son. Incaret in the person of Jesus Christ. He is half God and half man.

It would be impossible for God to be reduced from a whole; therefore Jesus Christ incarnate, was fully God and fully Man.

He has - and everyone but Catholics would agree - a sinner for a mother and God for a "father." In most religions, that means the product is half man and half god, not 100% man and 100% God.

But Christianity is not like most religions. Christianity is not really a religion, but a faith. A faith that gives the world evidence of spiritual truths not seen.

Most religions are based upon human reasoning, but the truth of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures come to us by faith, according to Godly reasoning.

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.

God is capable of being slow to anger at one time, and quick to anger at another, without being mutable (which I suspect is your real concern . . .and it is a good concern). How can this be? God can be slow and quick to achieve the same results. Different actions, but not different purpose. God has only one will and one purpose. God is slow to judge when it is necessary, and quick to judge when it is necessary, but God immutably is Judge.



God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene.

It is impossible that Mary be God, for God is self-existent, while Mary was created.

I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?

Simply because the Bible does not teach they were married.

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity?

This notion is extra-biblical. One should never form doctrine or belief from outside sources; especially the inventions of an unsaved novelist. The Word of God does not teach Jesus married Mary, nor does it ever teach that the Son became a father of biological offspring. The "children" of God are not of this world, but are spiritual children, born again by His Spirit.


In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.

The greek "gods" all issued as created beings, which disqualifies them from being true self-existent gods. Creator God is self-existent and uncreated; the Maker of those who invent all kinds of earthly (and false) gods.



In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.

The Holy Spirit issues from the male Father, and the male Son, so He is male also; being inseparable in essence.

The "helper" created by God in the beginning, was the female, Eve. And the Holy Spirit of Christ is the "Helper" provided for the "bride" of Christ.

Eve was a physical female; the church (bride) of Jesus Christ is a spiritual female. But of course, only metaphorically, for Paul also taught that in Christ (the church) there is "neither male nor female . . ." Galatians 3:28


In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister.

This ode to physical love and marriage, refers to earthly relationship between male and female. The spouse being called "sister" is spiritual language, denoting they enjoyed a spiritual relationship in addition to the physical . . .just as church brethren called each other spiritual "brothers and sisters" in the Lord.



She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.

Absolutely not. The Word of God says nothing of this, and you must not swallow lies invented by unsaved novelists.

Created beings (and Mary was a creature) cannot die for other creatures. That would be human sacrifice and an abomination to God. God would never accept one human dying for others; that is why God the Son came in flesh and blood as an acceptable sacrifice before God.


So what do you think?

I think you should burn your copy of the DaVinci Code, and pray to God to remove these wicked and wrong thoughts that have been planted in your mind. The book is not Godly truth; it is the work of an ungodly sinner, and it is disturbing you heart and clouding your mind.

I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church.

You have been fed confusion, and the only remedy for you, is to stop reading extra-biblical sources for a while. Read only the Scriptures, for that is the ONLY means God chooses to communicate truth to you. Only His Holy Spirit can clarify these things for you, and He has promised to lead the spiritual children of Jesus into all truth. See John 16:3.



Certian events in my life led me to this, and I'm sorry if I'm not making sense to not just blindly trust the church. Ok, I'm going to stop rambling now. :smile:

It is my opinion that the "church" (that consists of imperfect people) can sometimes be a source of confusion, also. My advice would be for you to read only the Bible for yourself, prayerfully, and when interacting with others, demand they support any theory or teaching they present to you, with Holy Scripture.

Nang

[The Plain Jane]

Wow, Nang, thanks! You've given me much to think about. Sorry for not replying to everything you said. You had much to say. :smile:

Welcome back. I hope you are well.
Thank you. I'll only be on for the weekend.

Simply because the Bible does not teach they were married.
See, this is where I've departed from Protestantism, though I am coming back to Lutheranism because I have seen Bound Will. I believe other documents could be inspired. I'm not saying they are or they are not. But because I have trust issues now, that mentality has seeped into my religious life. I don't know if I trust the church in putting together the cannon. I think it is possible that the church "created" the Jesus we have today. Please don't cast me out for this; thankfully, I've shared all these things with an ELCA pastor and when I can come, he is still going to accept me into his parish.

Absolutely not. The Word of God says nothing of this, and you must not swallow lies invented by unsaved novelists.
Actually, Dan Brown doesn't say Mary died spiritually, that was my invention. And that tells me you haven't read the book. :wink:

And I winced that you said "unsaved novelists." Can you look into their heart and tell they are unsaved?

Created beings (and Mary was a creature) cannot die for other creatures. That would be human sacrifice and an abomination to God. God would never accept one human dying for others; that is why God the Son came in flesh and blood as an acceptable sacrifice before God.
Jesus says there is no greater love than a man who dies for his friends. You need to be more specific: "God would never accept one human dying for the sins of others."

I think you should burn your copy of the DaVinci Code, and pray to God to remove these wicked and wrong thoughts that have been planted in your mind. The book is not Godly truth; it is the work of an ungodly sinner, and it is disturbing you heart and clouding your mind.
Here's my dilemma. Last year, October to be precise, I asked God for wisdom, and kept asking him. And one night I thought: "The bride is not the church. That's polygamy!" It came to me rather suddenly. And the fact that some sources do portray Jesus as married fed that mentality even more to me.

You have been fed confusion, and the only remedy for you, is to stop reading extra-biblical sources for a while. Read only the Scriptures, for that is the ONLY means God chooses to communicate truth to you. Only His Holy Spirit can clarify these things for you, and He has promised to lead the spiritual children of Jesus into all truth. See John 16:3.
I don't believe God only communicates through the Bible anymore. I believe this because I've seen many miracles these past couple months and I know: God is trying to communicate something to me.

Do I still look to the Scriptures? Yes! By all means! But do I think it is God's only source of guidance? No. Experience tells me this.

It is my opinion that the "church" (that consists of imperfect people) can sometimes be a source of confusion, also. My advice would be for you to read only the Bible for yourself, prayerfully, and when interacting with others, demand they support any theory or teaching they present to you, with Holy Scripture.
It would suprise me if you said any different Nang. Thank you.

[mastralvarado]

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!


I think I'm gonna be sick :brood: :eek: .

[The Plain Jane]

I think I'm gonna be sick :brood: :eek: .
You know, if someone said "God the Daughter" to me a couple months ago, I would've had the same reaction you just did.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your honesty.

[JackC]

Hello. Long time, no post.

I have in times past I have called RanRan a heretic, and I wouldn't do that to him today, because my own ideas about the Trinity are heretical - all branches of Christendom would be right in calling me a heretic and I expect them too.

But I want to bounce these ideas on more than just pastors who passionately tell me how wrong I am. I'm not looking for a debate, and this will likely be my only post. But before I settle on a doctrine concerning the Trinity, I'm going to read the "other" testament writings - the ones that didn't make the canon. My Lutheran pastor was kind enough to hunt a book down and give to me. :smile:

But here is my thoughts so far, and I would like to hear especially from Lutherans on this, as it has Lutheran like quailities. (You'll see what I mean in a minute.)

It's actually really brief.

Before I begin, I will state that I am in full agreement still with the Aposltes Creed and Nicene Creed as far as I can see. The Athanasian Creed - no.

God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.

God the Son. Incaret in the person of Jesus Christ. He is half God and half man. He has - and everyone but Catholics would agree - a sinner for a mother and God for a "father." In most religions, that means the product is half man and half god, not 100% man and 100% God.

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.

Hello again Jane,

The problem here is the same that was mentioned in the thread on God's Will...the confusion over the Spirit, the soul, and flesh.

If we look to Hebrews 2, perhaps something will open...

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:


“ I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”

13 And again:


“ I will put My trust in Him.”

And again:


“ Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


The children, the sons of God, are not flesh and blood, but partook, became clothed, in flesh and blood. They are soul clothed Spirits.

Jesus as a piece of Christ the Spirit, clothed in an unfallen Soul chose to partake of flesh and blood, to be clothed in fallen flesh and blood just as we are.

His Spirit is fully Christ, His unfallen Soul falling as ours did and also becoming clothed in fallen flesh (100% fallen man), so that he had to deal with the same obstacles in incarnation that we as fallen souls have to deal with.


He died phsyically for the sins of the world. And was resurrected phsyically after three days.

There is so much confusion within the Christian ranks that what occurred with the crucifixion and resurrection has been lost in amidst man's traditions.

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene. Two human parents, she is 100% human. I personally believe that she is the deciciple Jesus loved in the Book of John. I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity? In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.

[[Because of recent experiences I've been through, conspiecy ideas are not something I easily turn away. Am I saying the church is intentionally hiding something? No, but I think Christians will do themselves a service to at least think about what Dan Brown and others are trying to convey.]]

In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.

She had seven demons. And how many days is there in a week? Seven days. Through God the Son all things were made, and since she is one flesh with Christ, through her as well all things were made, including Eve. Actually, I don't think the Scriptures say Jesus created anything. It says through Him, not by Him. I'm open to correction about this.

Now, I see the problems with God the Daughter. It says the Spirit was poured out a Pentecost. I know there are problems with Mary being the Spirit. But is it possible for the Spirit to be in two places at once, and to take on different forms? Who knows?

In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister. Which makes since to therefore think of the Daughter and the Son as the only begotten children of God.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.


So what do you think? Correct me, that's fine, but don't look for me to respond; I'm not in a position to. I just want to know what others think of this. I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church. Certian events in my life led me to this, and I'm sorry if I'm not making sense to not just blindly trust the church. Ok, I'm going to stop rambling now. :smile:


I agree, Jane, that it makes no difference to Jesus' mission, falling and becoming clothed in flesh and blood, whether or not he, as the son of man, was married and had children. What matters is the Light that He brought into this world through His Incarnation and His Teachings.

If I may offer, understanding of the feminine of God has been distorted and lost within the Christian ranks. You are onto something important with your seeking. Don't stop.

Before creation, there was One Undifferentiated Spirit who has a Thought to experience Itself as the Lover, the Beloved, and Love in individualization. That Thought became His Word.

God then created out of Himself a Spirit Being that was like Him in all ways, except It was Finite, while He was Infinite. The Blissful interactions between the One Undifferentiated Spirit and His created Spirit resulted in a polarization, the Undifferentiated becoming 'masculine' and the created Spirit becoming 'feminine'. Their continued blissful interactions eventually resulted in the begetting of Love, of Christ, the Only Begotten.

And through Christ and by Christ, all that is created was created.

Biblically, the Infinite Spirit is called the Father God, the Finite Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Only Begotten, of course, Christ.

It is in first understanding the masculine and feminine of God that one begins to understand how the fall occured.

Keep seeking, Jane, and so much will be opened up to you.


Jack

[Nang]

I don't know if I trust the church in putting together the cannon.

I agree with you. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed and protected what He inspired holy men to write, to be the canon. The Bible is authored by God and preserved by God . . .not by mere men.


I think it is possible that the church "created" the Jesus we have today.

Me too.

Remember, the Lord tells us in the Bible, that these "created" Christs will become more and more predominent as we get closer to the last days.

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' Do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." Matthew 24:23&24

The only Christ we can be sure of, is the One revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Any description of Jesus Christ or theory as to His Person or purposes, must be tested against what He has revealed about Himself in the Bible.


Actually, Dan Brown doesn't say Mary died spiritually, that was my invention. And that tells me you haven't read the book. :wink:

Oh, I read it, all right. It is the implications made in the novel of Jesus reproducing, that brings Him down to an erroneous human level, that allows others to elevate His mother Mary, to erroneous spiritual levels. The contrast between Divine and earthly is lost, and the waters get muddied.

And I winced that you said "unsaved novelists." Can you look into their heart and tell they are unsaved?

I judge this particular novelist to be unsaved, according to his words and theories that are without biblical grounds.


Jesus says there is no greater love than a man who dies for his friends. You need to be more specific: "God would never accept one human dying for the sins of others."

There is a big difference between men (e.g. "military") sacrificing their lives for the good of society, and a man martyring himself to appease a god. You can discern that, I am sure.


Here's my dilemma. Last year, October to be precise, I asked God for wisdom, and kept asking him. And one night I thought: "The bride is not the church. That's polygamy!" It came to me rather suddenly. And the fact that some sources do portray Jesus as married fed that mentality even more to me.

Are you saying you believe it would be more righteous and moral for Jesus to have had only one wife, than to be married to a church consisting of multitudes? That is taking the teachings about the church a bit too literally, don't you think?

And if the church is not the female counterpart to the last Adam (as Eve was to the first Adam), then what relationship does the church have with Jesus Christ? (BTW, when I refer to "church" I refer to the invisible body of all believers, registered in heaven and written in the Lamb's Book of Life . . .not the corporate, visible, and various church organizations in this world.)


I don't believe God only communicates through the Bible anymore. I believe this because I've seen many miracles these past couple months and I know: God is trying to communicate something to me.

I cannot comment on this, not knowing the details, but my advice would be the same. Stick just with the Bible, for miracles must be supported by Scripture, too.

Do I still look to the Scriptures? Yes! By all means! But do I think it is God's only source of guidance? No. Experience tells me this.

Then you are elevating your "experiences" above the authority of the Word of God Almighty. IMO, not a wise thing to do.


It would suprise me if you said any different Nang. Thank you.

I know. I am a die-hard believer in Sola Scriptura!

Nang

[The Plain Jane]

I agree with you. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed and protected what He inspired holy men to write, to be the canon. The Bible is authored by God and preserved by God . . .not by mere men.
I am aware of this. I saw you voice this elsewhere.

I judge this particular novelist to be unsaved, according to his words and theories that are without biblical grounds.
I still think passing judgement on someone's soul is a very unwise thing to do. He may very well not believe dogmaticlally what he wrote in that book. Hell, maybe behind closed doors he's a Calvinisit like you! You don't know what he believes in his heart and that's what I'm taking issue with.

Are you saying you believe it would be more righteous and moral for Jesus to have had only one wife, than to be married to a church consisting of multitudes? That is taking the teachings about the church a bit too literally, don't you think?
I don't think so. *shrugs* You say it like it's a profane observation. But it does make more sense to me for Jesus to have a single woman as a bride than every Christian who has lived and is living and will live. Just makes more sense to me. I'm waiting for the Scripture that says the bride is corporate. Even then, I would guess it was an edit done by the church. Please be patient with my reason.

(BTW, when I refer to "church" I refer to the invisible body of all believers, registered in heaven and written in the Lamb's Book of Life . . .not the corporate, visible, and various church organizations in this world.)
So do I.

I cannot comment on this, not knowing the details, but my advice would be the same. Stick just with the Bible, for miracles must be supported by Scripture, too.
I thought Jesus performed miracles out of compassion or because someone's faith called for it.

Then you are elevating your "experiences" above the authority of the Word of God Almighty. IMO, not a wise thing to do.
Where do I do that? Where in Scripture is what I say contriadicted? Where does it say Jesus wasn't married? Where does it say He is 100% divine? "I and the Father are one?" Well, I can't argue with that. But I still feel he wasn't 100% divine. It's dangerous to base a whole doctrine on one verse, I think.

I know. I am a die-hard believer in Sola Scriptura!
I know. :smile: I was. What I believe is so wrong yet I have never been more at peace in all my life. I could be wrong, I'm open to that.

[Nang]

I still think passing judgement on someone's soul is a very unwise thing to do.

Well, I am not passing judgment on his eternal soul. Who knows? Brown might be born again by the power of God's grace in the next 24 hours, for all I know. However, I can discern he is not a Christian when he persists in grossly speculating about the Son of God and goes beyond Scripture to do so.


But it does make more sense to me for Jesus to have a single woman as a bride than every Christian who has lived and is living and will live. Just makes more sense to me.

Just to add a detail about the invisible church being the female counterpart of Christ . . .she is called a "bride" but is still His betrothed bride; a virgin.

". . .For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." II Cor. 11:2

The actual consumation of marriage is yet to come:

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Rev. 19:7


I'm waiting for the Scripture that says the bride is corporate.

The "bride" is likened to a "city" that consists of many individual citizens:

"Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.'" Rev. 21:2&3


Where does it say Jesus wasn't married?

The Bible speaks of a forthcoming, spiritual marriage between Christ and His people (the invisible church). IOW's Jesus is betrothed. He could not have been married and betrothed at the same time, could He?


Where does it say He is 100% divine? "I and the Father are one?" Well, I can't argue with that. But I still feel he wasn't 100% divine. It's dangerous to base a whole doctrine on one verse, I think.

I don't understand why you do not want to believe Jesus Christ was fully God.

What I believe is so wrong yet I have never been more at peace in all my life. I could be wrong, I'm open to that.

Well, I certainly would not begrudge your feeling at peace. God wants you to rest in Him and trust in Him and have peace in your soul that passes understanding. I am simply giving you feedback to your questions and comments, and have no desire to argue with you or get you upset.

For you see, I rest in Him and trust Him to keep you while leading you into all truth, if indeed He has given you faith to believe in His Son. All these things will work out to His glory.

Nang

[The Plain Jane]

Well, I am not passing judgment on his eternal soul. Who knows? Brown might be born again by the power of God's grace in the next 24 hours, for all I know. However, I can discern he is not a Christian when he persists in grossly speculating about the Son of God and goes beyond Scripture to do so.
Thanks for that clarification.

Just to add a detail about the invisible church being the female counterpart of Christ . . .she is called a "bride" but is still His betrothed bride; a virgin.

". . .For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." II Cor. 11:2

The actual consumation of marriage is yet to come:

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Rev. 19:7

The "bride" is likened to a "city" that consists of many individual citizens:

"Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.'" Rev. 21:2&3

The Bible speaks of a forthcoming, spiritual marriage between Christ and His people (the invisible church). IOW's Jesus is betrothed. He could not have been married and betrothed at the same time, could He?
Thank you for the Scriptures. :smile:

I don't understand why you do not want to believe Jesus Christ was fully God.
Because I struggle. Because I have doubts. Because I'm human.

And because I don't think the Scriptures portray Him as fully divine. And because I believe that sources outside the Bible are possibly inspired. I want to explore other gospels before settling on a doctrine.

Well, I certainly would not begrudge your feeling at peace. God wants you to rest in Him and trust in Him and have peace in your soul that passes understanding. I am simply giving you feedback to your questions and comments, and have no desire to argue with you or get you upset.
Thank you.

For you see, I rest in Him and trust Him to keep you while leading you into all truth, if indeed He has given you faith to believe in His Son. All these things will work out to His glory.
Of course they will. :smile:

[bigsplit]

Hello Jane,

I also do not see how it lessens the importance of Jesus if he were married. I do not know that he was married and I do not know he was not married. The one scripture in my opinion that supports an unmarried Christ is where he says "some become enochs for the glory of God."

As for him being 100% devine, this too means little to me as to his role as the son of man. Remember he emphasized the fact that we are all Gods (that little g stuff is man made, I do not think he distinguished). Perhaps what makes him devine is the fact that he realized just what Soloman meant by this in the Psalms. Maybe he was the first to realize he was a God and that this realization was what made him one with the Father. Maybe, this is the realization that we should make, that we too are one with the father.

As for Mary being the daughter of God, that one doesn't make much sense to me. I do not believe there is any spiritual differences in the sexes. The gender issue is based on biological issues of the flesh created by testosterone levels. It is the flesh what confusses these dogmatic ideas of gender preferences and all such things.

As for extra biblical insights, we know that all of what was taught by Jesus could not be contained in every library on the planet, much less in one book. This is why the Holy Spirit is so valuable. Remember that the books in our Bible were written by flesh and blood men who had agendas and goals in a very unique socio-economic and cultural system. They were deemed inspired by a group lead by a pagan and the "authorities" that attended the council were more politician than prophet.

What you should be asking yourself is why did Paul teach what he taught to spread the teachings of Christ. What were the Peagan cultures of the time with their magical gods and goddesses that Jesus was competing with. Why did the story of Christ become greater than his teaching and prescriptions of rightous living in Paul's salvation doctrain. None of this is easy for the intellectually curious and that is how God made you. Stay true to the teachings of Christ and his prescriptions for eternal life, they will serve you well.

[Jawa Man]

But I want to bounce these ideas on more than just pastors who passionately tell me how wrong I am. I'm not looking for a debate, and this will likely be my only post. But before I settle on a doctrine concerning the Trinity, I'm going to read the "other" testament writings - the ones that didn't make the canon. My Lutheran pastor was kind enough to hunt a book down and give to me. :smile:
Do you mean a Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrypha? The fishy thing about the Gnostic Gospels is that they all originate from times after the apostles. The four gospels we use today are the earliest ones that we know of.

God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.
Why do you believe He became incarnate? I think the Bible says He didn't,
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (Joh 1:18 ESV for all)
not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. (Joh 6:46)
And referring the the Father, Jesus said,
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (Joh 4:24)
He is spirit, but not body. Jesus is distinct in the Trinity because He became flesh, so He is not just spirit.

God the Son. Incaret in the person of Jesus Christ. He is half God and half man. He has - and everyone but Catholics would agree - a sinner for a mother and God for a "father." In most religions, that means the product is half man and half god, not 100% man and 100% God.

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.
First, as pointed out by someone else, in the Old Testament and New God the Father sometimes zaps people on the spot. Now the idea of 100% God and 100% man is not contradictory, I don't think. Here is what Scripture says:
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, (Col 2:9)
Fullness = 100%. So God 100% dwells in a 100% human body.

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene. Two human parents, she is 100% human. I personally believe that she is the deciciple Jesus loved in the Book of John. I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?
I guess my question is why. Hints of Mary and Jesus having a possible relationship on that level do not appear until at least 100 years after Jesus died.

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity? In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.
I read that book! Anyway, I think Nang has a good answer to this part.

[[Because of recent experiences I've been through, conspiecy ideas are not something I easily turn away. Am I saying the church is intentionally hiding something? No, but I think Christians will do themselves a service to at least think about what Dan Brown and others are trying to convey.]]
The thing about Dan Brown is that there are outright lies in his book. Man, I really did like that book! But the information inside is really misleading. For example, Dan Brown states through Teabing that Nicea was won by a slim vote. This is simply false. It was somewhere around 300 to 2. Also, Opus Dei does not have a monastic order. I can't remember a lot more than that now, though.

In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.
Actually, in the LXX, the Greek word for "Helper" in Genesis is βοηθὸν, while in John it is παρακλητος, the Paraclete.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.
Sophia is actually Greek for wisdom. One of the most illustrious Churches of the Byzantine Empire was called the Hagia Sophia, the Holy Wisdom. If you look in the LXX version of Proverbs 8, sophia is used for the word wisdom.

In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister. Which makes since to therefore think of the Daughter and the Son as the only begotten children of God.
I think the word sister shouldn't be taken literally in Song of Solomon. Remember too that God explicitly forbade incest in the Old Testament.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.
Why do you believe this?

So what do you think? Correct me, that's fine, but don't look for me to respond; I'm not in a position to. I just want to know what others think of this. I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church. Certian events in my life led me to this, and I'm sorry if I'm not making sense to not just blindly trust the church. Ok, I'm going to stop rambling now. :smile:
Here are two good site, in my opinion, about the Trinity:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html

[barnasha]

"half god" does not make sense

you either take something as your god, or you do not.

[barnasha]

Do you mean a Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrypha? The fishy thing about the Gnostic Gospels is that they all originate from times after the apostles. The four gospels we use today are the earliest ones that we know of.


The canonical gospels originate from times after the apostles, too

[The Plain Jane]

Jawa Man:

Your post has helped me intensely. Thank you very much for posting; I have prayed for wisdom and I think God spoke to me through you.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.
Why do you believe this?

Actually, my presentation of the Trinity is not absolute, meaning, I don't believe it dogmaticly. These ideas just popped into my head, including this one about Mary dying spiritually. I don't think I believe that anymore.

I don't know what I believe anymore. I asked God four months ago to show me the truth and the frustrating thing is this is what He showed me. Or maybe Satan himself showed me this.

Please pray for me, any Christians who is reading this. Pray I receieve wisdom and insight, knowledge and contentment. This is my ongoing prayer for myself. :pray:

[The Plain Jane]

The canonical gospels originate from times after the apostles, too

How long after, would you say?

[Jawa Man]

Actually, my presentation of the Trinity is not absolute, meaning, I don't believe it dogmaticly. These ideas just popped into my head, including this one about Mary dying spiritually. I don't think I believe that anymore.
A while back I was having some doubts about the Trinity, made a thread about my thoughts, and got some really good answers. Here's the link. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76953)

I don't know what I believe anymore. I asked God four months ago to show me the truth and the frustrating thing is this is what He showed me. Or maybe Satan himself showed me this.
It is always dangerous, in my opinion, to come to conclusions without some sort of biblical or Church Father-ish reference to back it up. It has the potential to speculate beyond what God has revealed. For example, in the thread I linked to, I said one thing that I couldn't really back up - that there was a time when Christ was just a potential of the Father, before the world was made. However, I had forgotten that we believe God exists outside of time, which is what the Bible and Church tradition teaches (a day is like 1000 years to the Lord).

Please pray for me, any Christians who is reading this. Pray I receieve wisdom and insight, knowledge and contentment. This is my ongoing prayer for myself. :pray:
Sure.

[barnasha]

How long after, would you say?

While the consensus is that that the Gospel of Mark itself would have been written at least 3 decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, the details are incredibly vague and the subject of a much deeper discussion and study that most of us (myself included) do not have the time for - having a job and/or other things to study.

[barnasha]

Hello. Long time, no post.

I have in times past I have called RanRan a heretic, and I wouldn't do that to him today, because my own ideas about the Trinity are heretical - all branches of Christendom would be right in calling me a heretic and I expect them too.

But I want to bounce these ideas on more than just pastors who passionately tell me how wrong I am. I'm not looking for a debate, and this will likely be my only post. But before I settle on a doctrine concerning the Trinity, I'm going to read the "other" testament writings - the ones that didn't make the canon. My Lutheran pastor was kind enough to hunt a book down and give to me. :smile:

But here is my thoughts so far, and I would like to hear especially from Lutherans on this, as it has Lutheran like quailities. (You'll see what I mean in a minute.)

It's actually really brief.

Before I begin, I will state that I am in full agreement still with the Aposltes Creed and Nicene Creed as far as I can see. The Athanasian Creed - no.

God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.

God the Son. Incaret in the person of Jesus Christ. He is half God and half man. He has - and everyone but Catholics would agree - a sinner for a mother and God for a "father." In most religions, that means the product is half man and half god, not 100% man and 100% God.

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple. Quick to anger, slow to anger, 100% God, 100% Man is just not logical to me. He can't be quick and slow at the same time. Now, I'm not schooled in logic, so forgive me if I'm making mistakes here. But the turning the tables over always gave me trouble with believing Christ was 100% divine as well as other Scriptures.

He died phsyically for the sins of the world. And was resurrected phsyically after three days.

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene. Two human parents, she is 100% human. I personally believe that she is the deciciple Jesus loved in the Book of John. I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity? In Christianity's neighboring religion, Greek mythology, it's nothing for the gods to be married and have children.

[[Because of recent experiences I've been through, conspiecy ideas are not something I easily turn away. Am I saying the church is intentionally hiding something? No, but I think Christians will do themselves a service to at least think about what Dan Brown and others are trying to convey.]]



Many English speaking Christians use this terminology, "God the Father", "God the Son" , and "God the Holy Spirit"... I have been exposed to Christian doctrine most of my life and it is something you hear quite a bit.

It is very unclear, however, and only meaningful within a very specific ideological framework, where God is defined as a multi-faceted divine entity by which we humans could logically deduce its parts.

"God the Father" to me is grammatically nonsensical. I understand the meaning in Christian theologies, but in fact it is something unclear which causes much confusion - for those who rely upon it and to those who are trying to communicate with the speaker.

In a strictly grammatical sense, the word 'god' is a common noun referring to an idol - especially a deity, something worshipped and typically which has power over its subjects. God, with a capital 'G', refers to a particular god - traditionally the god of Abraham (jews and muslims and monotheistic Christians), or the 'multi-personed' god of the mainstream (Roman-descendent) Christians (who of course consider this god to to be the same as the god of Abraham, or rather, vice-versa).

If you closely examine ideas of the trinity in heretical gospels (heretical from the Roman state's point of view), you will see that the divine geometry of 3 - the idea of three and its possible meanings - is a very deep subject, far from being a fixed doctrine to apply to God to describe His/Its nature.

Whether or not you consider anything except the Roman Church's views when you want to know about the true meaning of trinity, or the idea of a holy Trinity, that is up to you. One one hand, you can learn about the theology of the trinity from the mainstream church as was established by the Romans at Nicea in 325. On the other, you could learn about the others who considered the trinity to be something quite different (and were persecuted by the Roman church for not agreeing with their ideas).

So, it is really up to you.. which 'trinity' are you interested in. The divine conceptof trinity as we see in many gospels from the times of Early Christianity, or the trinity written about by the victors, the Roman church?

Both are interesting (the roman trinity and the collection of philosophies about the nature of threeness regarded as heretical by Rome), but they are often entirely different concepts.


In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.

She had seven demons. And how many days is there in a week? Seven days. Through God the Son all things were made, and since she is one flesh with Christ, through her as well all things were made, including Eve. Actually, I don't think the Scriptures say Jesus created anything. It says through Him, not by Him. I'm open to correction about this.


Jesus did nothing that was not the will of God, or as he said, "his Father". So if you want to view Jesus as "part of" the Creator because the Creator worked through Jesus, then that is your point of view, but I would say it is a confused or convoluted (or at least imprecise) way to see things.



Now, I see the problems with God the Daughter. It says the Spirit was poured out a Pentecost. I know there are problems with Mary being the Spirit. But is it possible for the Spirit to be in two places at once, and to take on different forms? Who knows?

In Songs of Solomon, we see the groom call his spouse his sister. Which makes since to therefore think of the Daughter and the Son as the only begotten children of God.

She died spiritually for the sins of the world. And was resurrected spiritually after three days.


So what do you think? Correct me, that's fine, but don't look for me to respond; I'm not in a position to. I just want to know what others think of this. I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church. Certian events in my life led me to this, and I'm sorry if I'm not making sense to not just blindly trust the church. Ok, I'm going to stop rambling now. :smile:

I would suggest you learn the origins of the (doctrine of the) Trinity, specifically the history leading up to the Nicene Council in Rome. From there your interest may be piqued to know its more esoteric origins, a wonderful topic for study for those who care to know the truth!

Really, this whole Trinity business (the unseen god worshipped by Abraham is knowable and comes in a certain number of divisible or identifiable parts) is the biggest mess to me. It is a vain attempt to try to know the unknowable. Like sticking your hand in a pool of water and trying to grab it.. you come up with nothing, and yet you keep trying to prove otherwise. But if examining this idea of threeness helps your faith increase, then by all means stick to it and let it help you become a better person... but make sure you know what "God" was to the patriarchs, if you really crave to know the truth.

To answer your idea about "God the Daughter", if a daughter is something material, something created, then whatever it is, Abraham rejected its worship because it was not all powerful, and Moses and Jesus necessarily followed suit.

You are right to realize that God is not something masculine, something implicit and well understood in the religion and theology of the Jews, the religion and theology well known to people like Jesus of Nazareth and Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

[barnasha]

Jawa Man:

Your post has helped me intensely. Thank you very much for posting; I have prayed for wisdom and I think God spoke to me through you.




Actually, my presentation of the Trinity is not absolute, meaning, I don't believe it dogmaticly. These ideas just popped into my head, including this one about Mary dying spiritually. I don't think I believe that anymore.

I don't know what I believe anymore. I asked God four months ago to show me the truth and the frustrating thing is this is what He showed me. Or maybe Satan himself showed me this.

Please pray for me, any Christians who is reading this. Pray I receieve wisdom and insight, knowledge and contentment. This is my ongoing prayer for myself. :pray:

doubt everything you hear, and you will have faith like a plate of solid steel -- believe in something without knowing for sure, and your faith is something like wet paper

the more you doubt, the more you question, the more you seek, the greater your faith will become and the nearer you can draw to the Almighty.

most will recognize the person's name who said the following, but few tend to reflect on the depth of the message:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

[The Plain Jane]

Thank you branasha for your thoughts on my view on the Trinity. Thank you bunches and it was very enlightening.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
Oh I have reflected on it quite a bit. It is the only thing that gives me comfort anymore. Well, that's an extreme statement. There are other Scriptures that gives me comfort but this one the most.

Speaking of Scriptures, my pastor brought me a book by Bart Ehrman called Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. I'm reading it and it is fascinating. I really enjoyed the Gospel of Philip, in which, it seems, to portray Mary Magdalene as divine, or at least on equal footing with Christ. I still believe this to some degree, but I'm open to correction.

The other book he brought me is The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, which argues on the side of orthodox Christianity. It is by Darrell Bock. I'm going to also get a book that argues on the side of the Gnostic Gospels. Then I'm going to head back into orthodox Christianity and read some works from there: Book of Concord, Catholic works among others.

I'm going to sort what I believe before my dying day, hopefully. I haven't even decided which denomination within Christendom I agree with more. I'll sort it out before the year is over; that is my goal.

[Jawa Man]

I'd like to add to what Barnasha said, since I think he isn't presenting the whole case about the Trinity - Constantine, who called the Council of Nicea, sided with the Arians (at first) and was even baptized by an Arian heretic on his deathbed.

Eusebius reports that Constantine was baptized only shortly before his death in 337. With this, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism till old age or death[7]. According to Jerome, Constantine's choice fell upon the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who happened, despite his being an ally of Arius, still to be the bishop of the region.

Also, traditional trinitarian theology finds its roots in Judaism; Philo of Alexandria is a good example of the idea of multiple persons existing in the Godhead.

Also, concerning the date of the Gospels: The canonical Gospels are the earliest Gospels we have, whether you date them a few decades or one decade after (the most conservative and least conservative dates). And it is almost universally agreed that Q, the basis of Mark, came before all of the Gospels, and was an oral tradition directly from Jesus Himself. Add to the mix the fact that these people existed in an oral society, and the fact that by 70 AD, when many believe Mark was written, Christianity was already all around the Roman Empire in pockets, making indoctrinating them with new theology more difficult. The fact that the Gospels also agree with Jewish thought much more than any Gnostic Gospel adds to the authenticity of its origins, the Jewish Christians.

[barnasha]

Also, concerning the date of the Gospels: The canonical Gospels are the earliest Gospels we have, whether you date them a few decades or one decade after (the most conservative and least conservative dates). And it is almost universally agreed that Q, the basis of Mark, came before all of the Gospels, and was an oral tradition directly from Jesus Himself. Add to the mix the fact that these people existed in an oral society, and the fact that by 70 AD, when many believe Mark was written, Christianity was already all around the Roman Empire in pockets, making indoctrinating them with new theology more difficult. The fact that the Gospels also agree with Jewish thought much more than any Gnostic Gospel adds to the authenticity of its origins, the Jewish Christians.

granted the canonical gospels are pretty authentic in terms of what they are, but many people are under the false assumption that they are books written by the disciples of jesus themselves.

Philo was a Jew by heritage, but that does not necessarily mean he represented a mainstream Hebrew theological point of view (such as would Jesus or even Paul); he was a philosopher who took from the Greeks as well as the Hebrews, ribht?

[Jawa Man]

Why do you think they were not written by the writers claimed? I am honestly wondering.

You're right, he did borrow Greek philosophical terms, although he based his opinions on Scripture. However, his idea of the Logos of God existing as a living attribute of God originally comes from Proverbs (although in the Greek Proverbs it would be sophia, or wisdom, which Jesus also calls Himself in the New Testament). I think the first tektonics article I linked to deals with the topic well.

[CallistoSeeking]

I'm going to sort what I believe before my dying day, hopefully. I haven't even decided which denomination within Christendom I agree with more. I'll sort it out before the year is over; that is my goal.

Blessings in Christ, Jane~~

I just had been reading this entire thread, & wanted to say from someone who is currently seeking truth & wanting to know what I believe and why--you're on the right path :smile: Keep your heart and mind open to what God may be wanting to reveal to you, & never give up on a point/belief merely because you don't understand it. Seek & you will find. This He promises.

And as it's been said already--it really isn't wise to just form beliefs out of the blue or based on up and down swaying opinions or one line you read, or even one verse. I know I used to have this problem, and still do probably (hence why I'm still seeking to understand the things I want to believe). It is easy to come up with any belief, and even the logic for it, but if it's not worthwhile in the end if we're forming that logic outside of what God has intended to convey. Trust the scriptures and the references that have been tried & true.

Anyway--may God bless your journey, & lead you to His truth. You'll be in my prayers. :hug:

~~Audrey~~ :pray:

[JackC]

The fact that the Gospels also agree with Jewish thought much more than any Gnostic Gospel adds to the authenticity of its origins, the Jewish Christians.

Actually, this is not exactly true.

There is much in Jewish oral tradition, and in their 'inner teachings', that coincides with the Gnostic Gospels.

Here is an example from the Zohar...

Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 198a - Thus Scripture says, "And Moses assembled", "Moses" being an allusion to Heaven; while the words "all the congregation of the children of Israel" allude to the twelve supernal holy legions. The next words, "and said unto them... This is the thing... Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord", means, "prepare yourselves, all of you, to take and to bear upon you the glory of the Divine Throne so as to raise it aloft to the divine heights; appoint from among you those supernal glorified chiefs who shall take up that offering containing the mystery of the Divine Throne, in order to bring about a union with the "patriarchs", (Tr. note: Al. "with her spouse".) for the Matrona (i.e. the Shekinah) may not come to her Spouse except those youthful bridesmaids follow in her train until she is brought to Him, as it says, "The virgins her companions in her train being brought unto thee" (Ps. XLV, 15), to wit, that she may join her Spouse.

And...

Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 238a - ’AND THEY BROUGHT THE TABERNACLE UNTO MOSES, ETC. It is written: “And above the firmament” (Ezek. I, 26). This alludes to the firmament that is placed over the four Hayoth (Holy Animals) who are impinged on by the spirit of the Hayah (Holy Animal), by whose spirit they all rise aloft, as it says: “and when the Hayoth were lifted up from the earth, the Ofanim (Wheels) were lifted up beside them, for the spirit of the Hayah was in the Ofanim” (lbid. I, 21). It is when the space of that region, as it were, impinges on them that the four Hayoth rise and carry aloft the superior Hayah, bringing it to the Supernal Illumination. This is esoterically alluded to in the words, “The virgins her companions in her train being brought unto thee” (Ps. XLV, 15), the four Hayoth being so designated. These raise the Supernal Hayah higher and higher so as to uphold the Supernal Throne, as esoterically indicated in the words, “and [they] bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth” (Gen. Vll, 17). The same allusion can be found in the words, “And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses”, Moses being a synonym of Adam. The Tabernacle is symbolic of all the members of the Body when suffused with a holy desire for the union of the male and female principles. So “they brought the tabernacle”, since the bride is first to be brought to her spouse, who subsequently takes up his abode with her permanently.

And...



Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 9a - On that day the whole earth will be shaken from one end to the other, and thus the whole world will know that the Messiah has revealed himself in the land of Galilee. And all who are diligent in the study of the Torah-and there shall be few such in the world-will gather round him. His army will gain in strength through the merit of little infants at school, symbolized by the word ephroah-"young bird" (cf. Deut. XXII, 6). And if such will not be found at that time it will be through the merit of the sucklings, "the eggs" (Ibid), "those that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts" (Isa. XXII, 9), for whose sake the Shekinah dwells in the midst of Israel in exile, as indeed there will be few sages at that time. This is the implication of the words "And the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs", which, allegorically interpreted, means that it does not depend upon the Mother to free them from exile, but upon the Supreme King; for it is the young ones and the sucklings that will give strength to the Messiah, and then the Supernal Mother, which "sits upon them", will be stirred up towards Her Spouse. He will tarry for twelve months longer, and then he will appear and raise her from the dust: "I will raise up on that day the tabernacle of David that is fallen" (Amos IX, II). On that day the Messiah will begin to gather the captives from one end of the world to the other: "If any of thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee" (Deut. xxx, 4). From that day on the Holy One will perform for Israel all the signs and wonders which He performed for them in Egypt: "As in the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt, will I show unto him wonders" (Micah Vll, I5).’


While I do not advocate studying the Zohar (part of the Kaballah tradition) because it has been much distorted over the years by the same false god who led Israel astray, and so dangerous, the point is that what Jane is asking is not unique. Such is at the foundations of multiple religious traditions - including Christianity.

Whether or not Mary M was Jesus spouse though is moot. The issue beging the divine Masculine and Feminine Principles and what they have to do with creation, especially with the fall and how what has fallen will be redeemed. [The part in bold points how our redemption will come about. Only the Supreme King, the Father's Will-Force, Christ in Power, will redeem us, but through the Energy of the Mother - the Holy Spirit.]

I would advise, Jane, that you follow your heart, and do not let your mind reason away - especially with the help of other 'minds' - what your heart is trying to tell you. We each already know the truth, but the gods of this world will use any and all means to keep us from remembering.


Fear not. Have faith, in God, not in the traditions of men.

[/i]So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.[/i]

The whole world has been deceived....you will only find the truth within yourself.





Jack

[Jawa Man]

Hi Jack. Yes, I remember learning about that book in a Judaic Studies class. We were taught that it was made up during Medieval times. The Jewish Encyclopedia says,
A pseudepigraphic work which pretends to be a revelation from God communicated through R. Simeon ben Yoḥai to the latter's select disciples. Under the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch, written partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew, it contains a complete cabalistic theosophy, treating of the nature of God, the cosmogony and cosmology of the universe, the soul, sin, redemption, good, evil, etc. It first appeared in Spain in the thirteenth century, being made known through the agency of the cabalistic writer Moses ben Shem-Ṭob de Leon, who ascribed it to the miracle-working tanna Simeon ben Yoḥai. The fact that it was launched by such an unreliable sponsor as Moses de Leon, taken together with the circumstance that it refers to historical events of the post-Talmudical period, caused the authenticity of the work to be questioned from the outset. After the death of Moses de Leon, it is related, a rich man of Avila, named Joseph, offered the widow, who had been left without means, a large sum of money for the original from which her husband had made the copy; and she then confessed that her husband himselfwas the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she said, why he had chosen to credit his own teachings to another, and he had always answered that doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Simeon ben Yoḥai would be a rich source of profit (see "Sefer ha-Yuḥasin," ed. Filipowski, p. 89). Incredible as this story seems—for it is inconceivable that a woman should own that her deceased husband had committed forgery for the sake of lucre—it at least proves that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written entirely by Moses de Leon. This seems to have been the opinion of the cabalistic writer Joseph ibn Waḳar, and he cautioned the public against the work, which he asserted to be full of errors.

And not knowing the theology of the book itself, I don't have an explanation for the references in the Zohar you pointed out. However, with the book being written over a thousand years after the canonical Gospels, I don't think it is a good argument for saying there were gnostic influences in the Judaism of Jesus' time.

[JackC]

Hi Jack. Yes, I remember learning about that book in a Judaic Studies class. We were taught that it was made up during Medieval times.

And not knowing the theology of the book itself, I don't have an explanation for the references in the Zohar you pointed out. However, with the book being written over a thousand years after the canonical Gospels, I don't think it is a good argument for saying there were gnostic influences in the Judaism of Jesus' time.

Hi Jawa Man,

Like with just about all spiritual documents, there is disagreement regarding their origins, and I can understand why some would hold that to what you offered.

Among Orhodox Jews though this is not the belief.

What we call the Old Testament was just a small part of Judaic tradition, most of which is referred to as the Oral Tradition, considered their higher or more advanced teachings that were not put to writing until after the time of Jesus.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia:

Much, perhaps most, of Orthodox Judaism holds that the teachings of the Zohar were transmitted from teacher to teacher, in a long and continuous chain, from the Biblical era until its redaction by Shimon ben Yochai. Many (most?) accept fully the claims that the Zohar's teachings are in essence a revelation from God to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, Moses and other ancient figures, but were never printed and made publicly available until the time of the Zohar's medieval publication. The greatest acceptance of this sequence of events is held within Haredi Judaism.

The point is that if you search through historical literature you will find that many spiritual traditions teach - or have at their roots - these same precepts.

Again, I do not advocate a study of Kaballah, because it has been distored, just as all Judaic writings, by the false god who led Israel astray. The distortions are not relected though in what Jane has been asking about, but in presenting a paganlike bloodthirsty, revengeful, jealous, hateful god - the father of lies in contradiciton to the Father whom Jesus revealed.

I recommend the Gospels only (along with the rest of NT as secondary), and one's heart, and let God be the lead.





Jack

[The Plain Jane]

Hey folks.

I've come back into orthodoxy:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=94469

I swear, when I came back to the Trinity as taught by the church, I felt like a brand new creature and a peace entered me. What I'd give to have that peace at all times.

"God our Father
by raising Christ your Son
you conquered the power of death
and opened for us the way to eternal life.
Let our celebration today
raise us up and renew our lives
by the Spirit that is within us.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you
and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

(Prayer taken from the Seasonal Missalette.)

[Sevivon1913]

Hey folks.

I've come back into orthodoxy:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=94469

I swear, when I came back to the Trinity as taught by the church, I felt like a brand new creature and a peace entered me. What I'd give to have that peace at all times.

"God our Father
by raising Christ your Son
you conquered the power of death
and opened for us the way to eternal life.
Let our celebration today
raise us up and renew our lives
by the Spirit that is within us.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you
and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

(Prayer taken from the Seasonal Missalette.)

Hiya,

What made you change your mind, if you don't mind me asking, please?


Sevi

[barnasha]

Why do you think they were not written by the writers claimed? I am honestly wondering.



I think you are confusing "claim" with "attribute"...

What scholar claims that the gospels are definitively written by who they are named after? Is he or she in the majority?



You're right, he did borrow Greek philosophical terms, although he based his opinions on Scripture. However, his idea of the Logos of God existing as a living attribute of God originally comes from Proverbs (although in the Greek Proverbs it would be sophia, or wisdom, which Jesus also calls Himself in the New Testament). I think the first tektonics article I linked to deals with the topic well.

Well, the consensus is that Jesus did not speak Greek, for what that's worth

[barnasha]

Jesus was not happy with orthodoxy.. He saw that the orthodox of his time was wrong, and he came to turn families against one another. We should follow in his example, and not just what is the "common belief"

[Sevivon1913]

Jesus was not happy with orthodoxy.. He saw that the orthodox of his time was wrong, and he came to turn families against one another. We should follow in his example, and not just what is the "common belief"

You mean Jesus wasn't happy with Torah Judaism? Boo hoo (like we care) :violin:

[barnasha]

You mean Jesus wasn't happy with Torah Judaism? Boo hoo (like we care) :violin:

you apparently don't care much, not even about your own culture, since you should know that the Torah came from Moses, who is not a Jew.

your mocking behavior seems to be indicative of the type of person you are

[Sevivon1913]

"Jew" is a later identification for a Hebrew. Moses was a Hebrew; as are all Jews.

[barnasha]

"Jew" is a later identification for a Hebrew. Moses was a Hebrew; as are all Jews.

From what I understand, "Jew" is short for Judah.

However you could be right, if we simply consider the Hebrew meaning of the word Judah - i.e. yehudi

I suppose this would be up for debate, I find the information on wikipedia's article particularly relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_the_word_Jew

[sylvius]

From what I understand, "Jew" is short for Judah.

However you could be right, if we simply consider the Hebrew meaning of the word Judah - i.e. yehudi

I suppose this would be up for debate, I find the information on wikipedia's article particularly relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_the_word_Jew

"Hebrew" = from the other side (of the river)

Rashi on Genesis 14:13,
the Hebrew Heb. הָעִבְרִי [So called] because he came from the other side (מֵעֵבֶר) of the [Euphrates] river (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).

which has to do with language,

Hebrew is the language "from the other side"

"safah" = lip, language, bank (of river), shore.

Abraham went out of the generation of the tower-builders, preserving the original tongue, Hebrew language,and Ashur saved the letters, original script, "ktav ashuri", Genesis 10:11,
From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah.
Rashi:
Since Asshur saw his sons obeying Nimrod and rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the tower, he departed from their midst. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:4]

"Jew" is derived from "Yehudah" , i.e., "this time i will confess my sin" Genesis 29:35.

that's why Mark 1:5 reads:
the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.


in fact the fourth river is the ultimate border of the universe,
so "Hebrew" = from beyond time and space.

[Prescott]

I look at the Trinity like this, that the Son was incarnated as a human being, not as God. That was the point of it in the first place. God was to experience life as a human. It was His great, self-test. In Jesus, we have the goodness of God mixed with the human, not half and half, or 100% this and 100% that, but mixed together. I see Jesus as not only capable of sin, but having sinned, since he could not be human and be sinless (and not because Adam sinned, but simply because he was human, and sin is part of the experience of being human). Not to have experienced sin and guilt would have made the whole experiment a fraud; it would have been a false test of God otherwise, and God is not false. But Jesus committed no sin of note, just as the sacrificial sheep has no blemish of note.

I see Jesus as innately having none of the powers of God, since humans don't have that. Jesus is the proof of God's love, as "greater love hath no man than to give his life for his friends." God truly did experience life as a human, demonstrating that He was willing to bear all the heart-ache, all the woes, all the fears, all the limitations, all the unfairness that we experience. He's not asking anything of us that He did not, at one time or another, subject Himself to as well.

Everything that Jesus knew of Heaven, of His prior existence, and His great power to work miracles, etc., was learned through prayer, fasting, visions, and other spiritual communications. He was a man of faith, but the spiritual power to work miracles, etc., came from the Father. Everything He knew about Heaven, and so on, the Father showed Him in visions. It wasn't His own knowledge, as humans are born without prior knowledge, and He couldn't have prior knowledge and be human like us.

The proof that He wasn't crazy, that His visions, etc., were true, was (1) the miracles (all provided by the Father), (2) the superior, spiritual power of His teachings, and (3) the Resurrection. No mere self-deluded person could have performed as Jesus did. Crazy people, by their very nature, are too incompetent to do that. It is by their ultimate incompetence that we define them as crazy in the first place. And Jesus was the most competent person who ever lived.

That's how I see it.

[barnasha]

"Hebrew" = from the other side (of the river)

Rashi on Genesis 14:13,
the Hebrew Heb. הָעִבְרִי [So called] because he came from the other side (מֵעֵבֶר) of the [Euphrates] river (Gen. Rabbah 42:8).

which has to do with language,

Hebrew is the language "from the other side"

"safah" = lip, language, bank (of river), shore.

Abraham went out of the generation of the tower-builders, preserving the original tongue, Hebrew language,and Ashur saved the letters, original script, "ktav ashuri", Genesis 10:11,
From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah.
Rashi:
Since Asshur saw his sons obeying Nimrod and rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the tower, he departed from their midst. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:4]

"Jew" is derived from "Yehudah" , i.e., "this time i will confess my sin" Genesis 29:35.

that's why Mark 1:5 reads:
the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.


in fact the fourth river is the ultimate border of the universe,
so "Hebrew" = from beyond time and space.

thanks for this contribution, didn't notice until now.

[barnasha]

I look at the Trinity like this, that the Son was incarnated as a human being, not as God. That was the point of it in the first place. God was to experience life as a human. It was His great, self-test. In Jesus, we have the goodness of God mixed with the human, not half and half, or 100% this and 100% that, but mixed together. I see Jesus as not only capable of sin, but having sinned, since he could not be human and be sinless (and not because Adam sinned, but simply because he was human, and sin is part of the experience of being human). Not to have experienced sin and guilt would have made the whole experiment a fraud; it would have been a false test of God otherwise, and God is not false. But Jesus committed no sin of note, just as the sacrificial sheep has no blemish of note.

I see Jesus as innately having none of the powers of God, since humans don't have that. Jesus is the proof of God's love, as "greater love hath no man than to give his life for his friends." God truly did experience life as a human, demonstrating that He was willing to bear all the heart-ache, all the woes, all the fears, all the limitations, all the unfairness that we experience. He's not asking anything of us that He did not, at one time or another, subject Himself to as well.

Everything that Jesus knew of Heaven, of His prior existence, and His great power to work miracles, etc., was learned through prayer, fasting, visions, and other spiritual communications. He was a man of faith, but the spiritual power to work miracles, etc., came from the Father. Everything He knew about Heaven, and so on, the Father showed Him in visions. It wasn't His own knowledge, as humans are born without prior knowledge, and He couldn't have prior knowledge and be human like us.

The proof that He wasn't crazy, that His visions, etc., were true, was (1) the miracles (all provided by the Father), (2) the superior, spiritual power of His teachings, and (3) the Resurrection. No mere self-deluded person could have performed as Jesus did. Crazy people, by their very nature, are too incompetent to do that. It is by their ultimate incompetence that we define them as crazy in the first place. And Jesus was the most competent person who ever lived.

That's how I see it.

there are other trinities too, spoken of by the followers of Jesus... I think of those too, even though they don't teach you that in Sunday School ;)

[whacky888]

There is no reference that Jesus ever got married -- in any historical source.

If you look at "historical" sources, then you are going to be hard pressed to find any that provides evidence that Jesus ever "existed", let alone be married.

But, there is one source that kind of clues you in to the fact that Plain Jane is right. He was married. That source would be your very own Bible.

I addressed this somewhere. Or, maybe I just wrote it. I don't remember. Here it is anyway.

Christians have a bad habit. They have a tendency to do something I like to call "Focus on the Hocus-Pocus". They view all the "miracles" and "magic tricks" at face value. Jesus performed all His miracles to prove that He was "the Christ" is the traditional belief. Ask any Christian the significance of the "water to wine" allegory, and they will tell you, "Jesus turned water to wine to demonstrate His divinity". They will tell you that all of Jesus' magic tricks were a demonstration of His divinity. I ask, did He speak in riddles and parables so that His message would be easily understood by all Bible-thumping Christians? I think not. There are "hidden" messages in His "miracles", just as there are in His Words.

The movie "The DaVinci Code" is out. Some may have seen it already, others may refuse to watch this "blasphemous" film. How dare someone claim that Jesus was actually married! That is not scriptural, and to suggest something so absurd is nothing short of the devil out to "deceive" everyone! I am not sure if the Pat Robertons and Jerry Falwells of the world are preaching this to their congregations, but, I would bet my last dime that the Scribes and Pharisees are out there pounding this message out. It is not surprising, as ministers and priests are chalk-full of "false teachings" these days.

Where in the wide world of scripture can we find just a tiny piece of evidence that would support such an absurd notion that Jesus may have tied the knot? Where can we support any notion other than the traditional belief that Jesus hung around with twelve dudes, and no women? In the New Testament, of course. Hidden in a story about a certain "marriage feast".

John 2:1-10
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

We know there was a "marriage". We know it was on "the third day". We know the "mother of Jesus was there". Evidently, His "father" was not there. But, Mom was.

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

Now we know that Jesus was "called" to the marriage, and his disciples were "called" (summoned)there as well.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her,

So, Mom says, "they have no wine". And, Jesus replies with something odd. He does not say, "gee mom, let me whip up some wine for you guys". No, He says:

4 Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Ouch! "Woman, what do I have to do with you?, my hour has not come yet". Not exactly what you would think a son would say to his mother, but, it's not important here, although He does say this a few times. You'd think she would say something back like, "don't talk to your mother like that"! Nope. She says:

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

"Do what He says"? Ok. Guess she was not offended. Not important.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

"Firkins" is a unit of measurement. One-quarter. This is symbolic, but, I won't address this verse here. They were half to three-quarters full evidently.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus tells somebody to "fill em up". We know they were "servants". Again, not important yet.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

Draw some out, and give some to the "governor of the feast". So, they did.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Now we get to the nuts and bolts of the story. The "ruler of the feast" drank some of the water turned wine, but did not know where it came from. The servants knew, but, what does the "governor" do? He calls the BRIDEGROOM.

Bridegroom is a man who has recently been married, or a male participant in his own wedding. Who then is the "Bridegroom"?

Matthew 9:15 - And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Matthew 25:5 - While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Luke 5:34 - And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

Guess who the "Bridegroom" is? One guess. Now we know why Mom was there. It was her "Son's wedding"! We have enough evidence to figure out exactly who the "bridegroom" was, as Jesus is more than once referred to as the "bridegroom", and they are not subtle references.

Now, is the DaVinci Code a blasphemous lie perpetrated by the devil? Hardly. Keep in mind, this was the "wedding reception". The "marriage" had already taken place.

This is not even the main point of the story. It is actually what the "ruler of the feast" says to Jesus, the "bridegroom".

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

"You know, usually it is customary to serve the vintage stuff first, and when the men are all drunked up, then you break out the cheap stuff. But not you. You have saved the good stuff until now."

Hmmm. Wonder why? Because, evidently the "new wine" was better than the "old". It is not that they "had no wine" at the "feast", they simply ran out. And, it appears that they were drinking "Mad Dog", and the host was surprised that Jesus whipped up the Don Perignon, and served it after the guests were snookered on the Mad Dog.

The evidence seems to suggest that it was Jesus' wedding. It also should clue you in as to why Jesus told us not to "mix the wine".

Another way to put it; after six Budweisers, you could give a man an Old Milwaukee, and he can't taste the difference. And, if a man drinks six Old Milwaukees, he would not care if you then gave him a Budweiser, he is already drunk on the cheap stuff, and doesn't care anymore. The cheap stuff is good enough. Those with ears will hear.

[whacky888]

There is no reference that Jesus ever got married -- in any historical source.

If you look at "historical" sources, then you are going to be hard pressed to find any that provides evidence that Jesus ever "existed", let alone be married.

But, there is one source that kind of clues you in to the fact that Plain Jane is right. He was married. That source would be your very own Bible.

I addressed this somewhere. Or, maybe I just wrote it. I don't remember. Here it is anyway.

Christians have a bad habit. They have a tendency to do something I like to call "Focus on the Hocus-Pocus". They view all the "miracles" and "magic tricks" at face value. Jesus performed all His miracles to prove that He was "the Christ" is the traditional belief. Ask any Christian the significance of the "water to wine" allegory, and they will tell you, "Jesus turned water to wine to demonstrate His divinity". They will tell you that all of Jesus' magic tricks were a demonstration of His divinity. I ask, did He speak in riddles and parables so that His message would be easily understood by all Bible-thumping Christians? I think not. There are "hidden" messages in His "miracles", just as there are in His Words.

The movie "The DaVinci Code" is out. Some may have seen it already, others may refuse to watch this "blasphemous" film. How dare someone claim that Jesus was actually married! That is not scriptural, and to suggest something so absurd is nothing short of the devil out to "deceive" everyone! I am not sure if the Pat Robertons and Jerry Falwells of the world are preaching this to their congregations, but, I would bet my last dime that the Scribes and Pharisees are out there pounding this message out. It is not surprising, as ministers and priests are chalk-full of "false teachings" these days.

Where in the wide world of scripture can we find just a tiny piece of evidence that would support such an absurd notion that Jesus may have tied the knot? Where can we support any notion other than the traditional belief that Jesus hung around with twelve dudes, and no women? In the New Testament, of course. Hidden in a story about a certain "marriage feast".

John 2:1-10
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

We know there was a "marriage". We know it was on "the third day". We know the "mother of Jesus was there". Evidently, His "father" was not there. But, Mom was.

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

Now we know that Jesus was "called" to the marriage, and his disciples were "called" (summoned)there as well.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her,

So, Mom says, "they have no wine". And, Jesus replies with something odd. He does not say, "gee mom, let me whip up some wine for you guys". No, He says:

4 Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Ouch! "Woman, what do I have to do with you?, my hour has not come yet". Not exactly what you would think a son would say to his mother, but, it's not important here, although He does say this a few times. You'd think she would say something back like, "don't talk to your mother like that"! Nope. She says:

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

"Do what He says"? Ok. Guess she was not offended. Not important.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

"Firkins" is a unit of measurement. One-quarter. This is symbolic, but, I won't address this verse here. They were half to three-quarters full evidently.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus tells somebody to "fill em up". We know they were "servants". Again, not important yet.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

Draw some out, and give some to the "governor of the feast". So, they did.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Now we get to the nuts and bolts of the story. The "ruler of the feast" drank some of the water turned wine, but did not know where it came from. The servants knew, but, what does the "governor" do? He calls the BRIDEGROOM.

Bridegroom is a man who has recently been married, or a male participant in his own wedding. Who then is the "Bridegroom"?

Matthew 9:15 - And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Matthew 25:5 - While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Luke 5:34 - And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

Guess who the "Bridegroom" is? One guess. Now we know why Mom was there. It was her "Son's wedding"! We have enough evidence to figure out exactly who the "bridegroom" was, as Jesus is more than once referred to as the "bridegroom", and they are not subtle references.

Now, is the DaVinci Code a blasphemous lie perpetrated by the devil? Hardly. Keep in mind, this was the "wedding reception". The "marriage" had already taken place.

This is not even the main point of the story. It is actually what the "ruler of the feast" says to Jesus, the "bridegroom".

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

"You know, usually it is customary to serve the vintage stuff first, and when the men are all drunked up, then you break out the cheap stuff. But not you. You have saved the good stuff until now."

Hmmm. Wonder why? Because, evidently the "new wine" was better than the "old". It is not that they "had no wine" at the "feast", they simply ran out. And, it appears that they were drinking "Mad Dog", and the host was surprised that Jesus whipped up the Don Perignon, and served it after the guests were snookered on the Mad Dog.

The evidence seems to suggest that it was Jesus' wedding. It also should clue you in as to why Jesus told us not to "mix the wine".

Another way to put it; after six Budweisers, you could give a man an Old Milwaukee, and he can't taste the difference. And, if a man drinks six Old Milwaukees, he would not care if you then gave him a Budweiser, he is already drunk on the cheap stuff, and doesn't care anymore. The cheap stuff is good enough. Those with ears will hear.

[RCNicholas]

Jesus was not happy with orthodoxy.. He saw that the orthodox of his time was wrong, and he came to turn families against one another. We should follow in his example, and not just what is the "common belief"
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." "

Jesus questioned the works of the Pharisees personally; he still acknowledged their legitimate religious authority. Jesus is the author of orthodoxy, of course he's happy with it.

[Bill the Cat]

:snip: And, if a man drinks six Old Milwaukees, he would not care if you then gave him a Budweiser, he is already drunk on the cheap stuff, and doesn't care anymore. The cheap stuff is good enough. Those with ears will hear.

:ale:

And those with drunkenness should not post...


:b_rotten:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Jane

I don't know if this is still relevant to you since your return to orthodoxy, but I'd like to answer acouple of points in your original post.


God the Father. Incarnet in the person who wrestled with Jacob, that is when God walked the earth. He created the Heavens and the Earth. He is 100% God.

Actually the text does not say, neither does church doctrine, that God the Father was ever incarnate. Incarnate means for God's Word/Wisdom to become a man. I think the Angel Jacob wrestled with was the pre-incarnate Jesus. (because the text says he saw God face to face, yet Moses was denied this)


God the Son.[snip]

Another reason why I say this, is that I see a problem with Christ being 100% God and 100% Man. In the Psalms, we read that God is slow to anger. But Jesus was quick to anger in the temple.I'm sorry, where does the Gospel say Jesus was quick to anger here?

God the Daughter. What! God the what?!

Incarnet in the person of Mary Magdalene. Two human parents, she is 100% human. I personally believe that she is the deciciple Jesus loved in the Book of John. I believe that Jesus and Mary were married. Why not?

They could never have survived public knowlege of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divnity and therefore the Christian Church, which...
~from The Da Vinci Code

I challenge someone to tell me how. How by being married and having children, how does that automaticly cancle Christ's divinity?

Not sure about the 'cancel' bit, but certainly in the major players in the 'Jesus was married' field - Barbara Thiering, Michael Baigent, Laurence Gardner, they all reject Jesus' resurrection. (Gardner revives the old swoon theory for example, in the Magdalene Legacy) Now the idea of multiple incarnations troubles me, why does the bible teach that the Word became flesh and no one else is described this way? What is the purpose of multiple incarnations if not to dilute the uniqueness of Jesus?

[[Because of recent experiences I've been through, conspiecy ideas are not something I easily turn away. Am I saying the church is intentionally hiding something? No, but I think Christians will do themselves a service to at least think about what Dan Brown and others are trying to convey.]]I have read Dan Brown, and his sources, and I am not convinced by works that emphasise Gnostic texts over the orthodox gospels. Conspiracy theories are notoriously difficult to prove.


In Genesis, we read that "it is not good for man to be alone, let is make a Helper for him." Then in John, we read "it is to your advantage I go away, otherwise the Helper will not come.

This is what is called sophia which is Latin for spiritual. Or so I'm told, this idea that the Holy Spirit is female.Sophia is Greek for wisdom.
I am not sure about a hermeneutic which skips from Genesis to John. Please tell me where you have read that the HS is female?


She had seven demons. ... Now, I see the problems with God the Daughter. Well yea, how can God have demons?

I don't know what I believe concerning the Trinity anymore. I don't trust man, so I don't trust the church. I would say that you should trust God's Word over experience. I'm glad you returned to orthodoxy. It is a witness to His truth. I don't know if you will reply, but may His Word bless you richly.

[whacky888]

And those with drunkenness should not post...

I am certain that since this reply is not driven in any direction, you were not driving it toward me. But, just in case it is, I will only say that it is much wiser to sip the wine, and not guzzle it. Because, I have heard that the sobriety test is much tougher than standing on one leg, counting backwards.

In a world full of really smart people, I alone remain an idiot.

Yet, Wisdom is justified of all Her children.

Some really wise dude said that.

Perhaps someone out there knows the chapter/verse. I prefer knowing what it means, rather than where it is located.

Where is Jack Van Impe when you need him!

peace

steve eden

[whacky888]

I read some of your blog Bill. Now, I do get the feeling that your comment might have indeed been directed toward me. Correct me if I am wrong.

Here are a couple of my own blogs you may wish to visit.

http://newerwine.blogstream.com
http://chroniclesofeden.blogspot.com

When Jesus said, "I will not henceforth drinketh of the fruit of THIS vine until I drink it ANEW with you in MY Father's Kingdom", I chose to "believeth on Him".

"Newer wine" does not intoxicate one nearly as much as that "aged" stuff.

"Drinketh of the vine, but don't be a drunkard".

There is no end to that dude's Wisdom!

But, who am I?

I, only I, am a bumpkin.

With that being said, I take comfort in the fact that in that "Book of Life" with names; you know, the one your name has to be in, "from the foundation of the world"; I have both books covered.

Steven - first Christian martyr.
Eden - that one is really old. Like from the "foundation of the world" old!

I hope yours is in there too, William. That was my Dad's name; and my oldest brother as well.

Because, I am of the understanding that the whole "second death" thing is not at all pretty.

Here is something to contemplate Bill.

"Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so too must the Son of man be lifted up".

Perhaps you can comment, and tell me exactly what Jesus meant when He said that?

I am curious as to what you think.

peace

steve eden

[Bill the Cat]

I read some of your blog Bill.

I have a blog?? :twitch:

Now, I do get the feeling that your comment might have indeed been directed toward me. Correct me if I am wrong.

Here are a couple of my own blogs you may wish to visit.

http://newerwine.blogstream.com
http://chroniclesofeden.blogspot.com

When Jesus said, "I will not henceforth drinketh of the fruit of THIS vine until I drink it ANEW with you in MY Father's Kingdom", I chose to "believeth on Him".

"Newer wine" does not intoxicate one nearly as much as that "aged" stuff.

"Drinketh of the vine, but don't be a drunkard".

There is no end to that dude's Wisdom!

But, who am I?

I, only I, am a bumpkin.

With that being said, I take comfort in the fact that in that "Book of Life" with names; you know, the one your name has to be in, "from the foundation of the world"; I have both books covered.

Steven - first Christian martyr.
Eden - that one is really old. Like from the "foundation of the world" old!

I hope yours is in there too, William. That was my Dad's name; and my oldest brother as well.

Because, I am of the understanding that the whole "second death" thing is not at all pretty.

Here is something to contemplate Bill.

"Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so too must the Son of man be lifted up".

Perhaps you can comment, and tell me exactly what Jesus meant when He said that?


It meant that He would be crucified, but, like Moses' serpent, His crucifixion would heal all who looked upon it.

[whacky888]

It meant that He would be crucified, but, like Moses' serpent, His crucifixion would heal all who looked upon it.

So, who was "crucified", Moses or the serpent? It does not mention this in my Bible.

No Bill. It is much simpler than this.

I thought that every good Christian knew that the Bible was "literally" True. It appears that you have read quite a bit into the "symbolism", and came up with this profundity.

How did Moses lift up the serpent? By the "HEEL". The "tail end".

So too must the Son of man be lifted up by the "heel". Because, there is a "heel-striker". Remember way back in Genesis. The enmity? "It will strike your head, and you will strike its heel".

The Son of man must be lifted up at the "tail end". Or, at the "end of the tale".

Like right now Bill. It is up to every man to "lift Him up by the tail end".

Here is some Wisdom from the "gospel of Mary Magdalene". You know, the "whore" who was also Jesus' "companion", whom He loved more than any of the disciples. It's not in your "Word of God", but, it is in mine.

34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.

The Son of man does exist in every man, how ironic that few can really find Him.

35) Follow after Him!

He said to follow after Him, carrying your own darn cross, and real importantly, “continue in His Word”. Truth Bill. Remember what “sets you free”? Knowing “His Word”. Truth.

36) Those who seek Him will find Him.

But, seeking Him does in no way mean going to church every Sunday for your weekly “idol worshipping, false message hearing, and to eat the body and drink the blood of a man who you worship as a literal human sacrifice” . Don’t devil worshippers have similar rituals?

The last I checked, "following after Him", and "seeking Him", has nothing to do with "worshipping Him as part of a three-god trinity of maleness".

37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.

Too many Pharisees and Scribes out there preaching stuff they don’t have a clue about! And, charging a hefty freakin price! "Free salvation" my gluteous maximus! Christians pay a darn good price for their "perceived salvation". It is a free "gift" in the sense that it does not "cost" any money! You would be much better served if you took that ten percent (of gross, not net income), and found some really poor folks, and give it to them, rather than donate to your pastor's new mercedes.

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

Rephrased and important…..Do not make a bunch of rules and laws. The Jews made 613 mitzvahs, not just 10 commandments! Who did that? Moses the “Lawgiver”. Jesus appointed two.

Love the Lord your God

That meant many things, but it applied to more than just the Hebrew“Adonai, or even Yahweh.

Love your neighbor as yourself, you do these two things and all the law and the prophets will be fulfilled.

Basically, He is telling us to Love the Lord our God, whoever it may be. And, don't screw anyone over.

LOVE needs no rules. What a concept. If you bind yourself to a rule that does not hurt anyone, tand then you break it, you carry the guilt! And, for no reason othe than because you are “constrained by it“…..make sense?

Matt:26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

His body is His Words. Take, eat, He says. He does not say, however, to "eat all of it"

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

When He passed the cup, He said, "Drink ye ALL of it".

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

His blood represents the Holy Spirit. And, He told them to drink every last drop. The Holy Spirit IS Wisdom. Drink all of it, as it is shed so that those who believed might have "remission of sins". Notice, however, that He does not say it is shed "for the sins of all mankind".

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Eat of His Word, drink of His blood, which is the Holy Spriit.

And, for the Love of God, quit calling your Heavenly Mother a "Ghost"!

[whacky888]

you apparently don't care much, not even about your own culture, since you should know that the Torah came from Moses, who is not a Jew.

Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 - Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

If Jesus called them "Jews", then, He must have meant "Hebrews", right?

Exodus 9:1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

Moses was indeed a Hebrew, and, if Hebrews are Jewish, then Moses was a Jew.

He was and is considered to be the most important "prophet" in Judaism, right? You may want to tell all the Jewish people that Moses was not really a Jew. They kind of believe that he was.

Ironically, the most important Hebrew prophet was given the thumbs down when it came time to cross the Jordan River. He was nixed from the group who crossed over into the "promised land".

I would have had to speak up if I were Moses. Oh, that's right; he was kind of "slow of speech"

I mean, come on; forty years of wandering, ten commandments, and 613 mitzvahs were not good enough?

He may have been semi-retarded, but, he could have had Aaron speak up for him.

I'm sorry....developmentally disabled....that was insensitive, and I am probably going to hell for that one. Unless, I am Jewish. They don't believe in hell. I am converting tomorrow.

No, I can't. I am really concerned about this whole "synagogue of Satan" thing

Unless, of course, Hebrews are not Jews. I always thought the two were synonymous.

Are there any "unorthodox" Jews on this forum that could clear this up?

Disclaimer: My use of sarcasm is not intended to be mean-spirited. It is used for the sole purpose of humor, and I apologize in advance for any offense taken by any Jews or Hebrews. Please do not think my use of sarcasm is intended for anything other than to TRY and make folks smile, or even laugh. Thank you.

your mocking behavior seems to be indicative of the type of person you are

Now that is just not funny!

"Judge not lest ye be judged". Someone said that somewhere.

"By your words ye are justified, and, by your words are ye condemned".

Unless, of course, you are condemned by Christians. Jesus' Words do not seem to apply to Christians. They like Paul's much better. They taste so "sweet" going down. Be careful, however. I heard they can cause quite a stomach ache.

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not. Someone else will come in his own name; him ye shall receive".

Hmmm....wonder who He was talking about?

I think it was Benny Hin. Pat Robertson maybe. Jerry Falwell....whoops....I think he's dead now.
Billy Graham! Yea...he's still alive, isn't he?

Certainly not Paul, or Saul. He knew Jesus really well, didn't he?

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Egads! Did someone forget to tell Jesus? I understand He had some serious locks. Shame, shame, shame!

At least all those "images" of Him dead on a cross suggest that He had some hair.

I wonder. Is an image of a dead guy on a cross considered "graven"?

Maybe that is why Jesus has not come "bursting through those clouds".

Nah.....It's the airplanes. He can't get through those darn airplanes!

He says He is sorry. Rapture's off folks!

peace

[barnasha]

Moses was indeed a Hebrew, and, if Hebrews are Jewish, then Moses was a Jew.

He was and is considered to be the most important "prophet" in Judaism, right? You may want to tell all the Jewish people that Moses was not really a Jew. They kind of believe that he was.


Moses was a Levite


Ironically, the most important Hebrew prophet was given the thumbs down when it came time to cross the Jordan River. He was nixed from the group who crossed over into the "promised land".

I would have had to speak up if I were Moses. Oh, that's right; he was kind of "slow of speech"

I mean, come on; forty years of wandering, ten commandments, and 613 mitzvahs were not good enough?

He may have been semi-retarded, but, he could have had Aaron speak up for him.


he wasn't retarded - it was a speech impediment


I'm sorry....developmentally disabled....that was insensitive, and I am probably going to hell for that one. Unless, I am Jewish. They don't believe in hell. I am converting tomorrow.

No, I can't. I am really concerned about this whole "synagogue of Satan" thing

Unless, of course, Hebrews are not Jews. I always thought the two were synonymous.


Hebrew = descendents of eber
Jew = Judean = from Judah


Are there any "unorthodox" Jews on this forum that could clear this up?

Disclaimer: My use of sarcasm is not intended to be mean-spirited. It is used for the sole purpose of humor, and I apologize in advance for any offense taken by any Jews or Hebrews. Please do not think my use of sarcasm is intended for anything other than to TRY and make folks smile, or even laugh. Thank you.





your mocking behavior seems to be indicative of the type of person you are

Now that is just not funny!

"Judge not lest ye be judged". Someone said that somewhere.


I do not judge, but only make an innocuous comment that those who mock others really seem to show how:

"By your words ye are justified, and, by your words are ye condemned".

[whacky888]

Moses was a Levite

So, Levi was not a "son of Israel" a.k.a. Jacob? Levites were not also Israelites? So, Israelites were not Hebrews? And, Hebrews are not Jewish?

Boy, if I were Jewish, which I am not; I would stop giving those Levites any money (tithes), because, they are not Jews at all.

Am I getting this right?

he wasn't retarded - it was a speech impediment

That was a joke. I know he was really just a hairlip. (That is a joke as well....feel free to laugh...or not)

I do not judge, but only make an innocuous comment that those who mock others really seem to show how:

Might want to make that clear, because, if I were the person you were directing that statement to, I would have found it to be rather offensive.

Disclaimers come in handy sometimes. I use them to hopefully let folks know that I am merely joking; and, not to confuse my humor with "mocking behavior". That is just the kind of person I am.

Have you ever heard the song "Mockingbird"? It's playing in my head now! Great. I hate that song!

peace

[barnasha]

So, Levi was not a "son of Israel" a.k.a. Jacob? Levites were not also Israelites? So, Israelites were not Hebrews? And, Hebrews are not Jewish?

eber was judah's ancestor...

Boy, if I were Jewish, which I am not; I would stop giving those Levites any money (tithes), because, they are not Jews at all.

Am I getting this right?

levi is judah's big brother


That was a joke. I know he was really just a hairlip. (That is a joke as well....feel free to laugh...or not)



Might want to make that clear, because, if I were the person you were directing that statement to, I would have found it to be rather offensive.

Disclaimers come in handy sometimes. I use them to hopefully let folks know that I am merely joking; and, not to confuse my humor with "mocking behavior". That is just the kind of person I am.

Have you ever heard the song "Mockingbird"? It's playing in my head now! Great. I hate that song!

peace