Did Jesus teach his followers to sin by prioritizing him over their parents?

[Pocketwatch]

Nothing really.
Just throwing in some bible verses. I do not believe Jesus ever really lived. After the O.T. was translated into Greek, the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews invented a new religion to subvert Juaidism. It is called syncretism. A blending of two religions to make another. It was a war strategy that Alexander the Great used to weaken the nations he was warring against.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Pocketwatch
Nothing really.
Just throwing in some bible verses. I do not believe Jesus ever really lived. After the O.T. was translated into Greek, the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews invented a new religion to subvert Juaidism. It is called syncretism. A blending of two religions to make another. It was a war strategy that Alexander the Great used to weaken the nations he was warring against.

Well, there's no doubt Christianity is a hybrid between Judaism and Greek religion, more specifically the wine-god Dionysus, but does that make it any less valid? Just as Judaism itself has considerably more to do with Zoroastrianism of Persia, than what we now call Judaism. While before that, the ancient Hebrews, prior to their release from Egypt, were probably very much like Egyptians, indeed. And upon their leaving, they turned the whole Egyptian pyramid scene upside-down, to form the star of David, so to speak. (I had always wondered if that's what that meant?)

While even prior to that, the name of the original patriarch, Abraham, is supposed to be derived from Brahma, one of the major gods of India; whereas Sarah (or Sarai), Abraham's wife, is supposed to be derived from Saraisvati, the Brahma's consort. In which case we're speaking of the blending of Brahmanism with possibly the Babylonian.

And, just as we are all "hybrids" in our own right -- in that we all have a mother and a father -- would it be incorrect to assume that such a relationship doesn't exist with religion as well?

 

[FZ+]

Because a rather major statement in the bible is that it is absolute truth, and the god of the bible is the only true god.

Hmm... protestants can argue the complete opposite. The pope is the anti-christ, and the reformation makes the way for jesus by returning religion to the people.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because a rather major statement in the bible is that it is absolute truth, and the god of the bible is the only true god.

All I'm saying is hey, things just don't arise out of nowhere.

Hmm... protestants can argue the complete opposite. The pope is the anti-christ, and the reformation makes the way for jesus by returning religion to the people.

Actually neither one is right, it's just that the Roman Catholics constitute a lower position on the totem pole so to speak. Whereas the third church, which is the highest and only "true church," exists above the two thirds or, the number 666 line.

 

[FZ+]

All I'm saying is hey, things just don't arise out of nowhere.

But as a matter of most theist dogma, they do. God, and the true belief in God is supposed something here from the beginning.

Whereas the third church, which is the highest and only "true church," exists above the two thirds or, the number 666 line.

And the fourth?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
But as a matter of most theist dogma, they do. God, and the true belief in God is supposed something here from the beginning.

Yes, but how can God arise out of nowhere if He's always existed? All this suggests is that everything which is not singular, arises out of that which is singular, God.

And the fourth?

There are actually only three degrees of enlightenment here. Which I like to compare to the development of radio and television. Where first you have the development of radio, where you can hear but are unable to see (understand), much in the way the Roman Catholics preach to the masses in a foreign tongue (Latin), in which case nobody can really see.

Second you have the development of black and white TV, where in fact everyone can now see and yet, it's still subject to interpretation, because there's no color. In which case it becomes like a free-for-all, much in the way the Protestant Church comes replete with a myriad of denominations.

Third you have the development of color TV, which is comprised of the marriage of truth (back and white) and good (color), thus speaking of that which is complete and fully functional, in which case nothing further needs to be said. Such is the case with the third and only "true church," which goes about its own business and doesn't draw a lot of attention to itself.

Of course if there were to be a fourth degree, it would probably be more like high-definition TV, where the relationship between the third degree (color) and second degree (black and white) are properly understood.

 

[Jikx]

the forth would be depth, a 3D TV. Where wisdom comes from the melding of Understanding (sound), Truth (B&W) and Good (Colour).

Keep on going, and you have reality, where you are now

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

jesus sinning

It would be nice if before any of you guys get to heavy into trying to figure out if Jesus sinned or not you would learn to read the Hebrew and Greek texts and know the culture and etc of which he lived enough to make an educated comment on what he supposedly said. In the English text it reads very differently than the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is very idiomatic Rabbinic Jewish thought and beliefs. If you don't understand them you don't understand Jesus. The book of thomas is a very late bogus rendering of things Jesus supposedly said. By all accounts this was written well over 300 years after Jesus lived. ALL Scholars worth their salt know this.If you really want to know what he said in the Hebrew or Greek I would be happy to tell you. But do you really want to know?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

why don't you enlight us then? why wouldn't I want to know? will the Earth crack and Armageddon start if you tell us?

Most of the people here have no time to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew. Why are those texts more true? Were they not copied over and over again during the centuries? Are you saying that the official translation of the Bible made by the church isn't reliable? Can you supply a link to a new translation?

 

[mikelus]

I see as a choice of the son or daughter to be a deciple of jesus. So this would not have been his sin. If anyones the son or daughter.

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

Jesus sin

sorry it's been a few days, but here goes. the passage is actually found in Luke 14:26, but it is actually a part of a larger teaching explaining to the people present about the nature of God and how to be a part of God' Kingdom both here and after. Jesus asked a question back in Luke 14:3 to try and elicit a response from the "spiritual leaders". It was in fact OK to heal on the sabbath but the Pharisee leaders were not being responsive to the people's needs at the time and Jesus was going to make a point that God cares even if the leaders don't. Back to 14:26. In Hebrew the word translated as "Hate" is sahneh. It is usually translated as hate properly, but sometimes it has the connotation not of hate as we know it but should be read as, "love less". This is what is found in the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 21:15 -if a man has two wives one beloved and the other hated...and Genesis 29:31 -and when the Lord saw that Leah was hated... The way this passage in Luke should be read is as follows. "If a man will come to me without loving his dad, mom, wife and kid, kinfolk and even his own life less than he loves me, he cannot be my student." This passage is about committment to a cause. The reason being is that in Jewish law there are stipulations as to what men could or couldn't do when following a teacher to be his student. This also relates directly to the 1st and 2nd commandments which are "I am YHWH your God and you shall have no other Gods before me." Thus, how can you be a disciple of a Godly man and commit to him if you are worried about all of your relatives and even yourself before being worried about God and what God requires. There is no sin here in what Jesus is saying. He is just relating standard Jewish law and interpretation.

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

answers for guybrush

Avast ye mate. The reason I asked If you really wanted to know is not facetious. I have many times started to answer questions for people who said they wanted to know but then were upset that so much they thought they knew was "wrong and they were going to have to learm new stuff. They became a little irritated. As far as the Earth opening up and swallowing us, I hope it doesn't, but you never can be too sure about that sort of thing,lol. I know most folks don't have the time to learn Hebrew and Greek just as I don't have time to learn Astrophysics right now. But just as I don't know this topic, I still have to find someone or some organization that makes sense when they speak if I have a question. As far as the Texts go, we were not real sure about the authority of transmission until we found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of these texts were in Hebrew and a few in Aramaic and most were written over 150 years before Jesus lived. They are almost identical to the Masoretic text we still use today. Although we know we are missing books spoken of in the OT and there may have been early modifications prior to Ezra, for the most part what we have today in the OT is what Jesus had. We also have many Greek texts that go back to about 100 C.E. or a little earlier. They also for the most part are similar. However, the New Testament was not held to be unchangeable until many years later so there was considerable modifications to the original documents for many years due to the audiences needs. However we have been able to reconstruct much of the originals due to finding earlier copies and finally cross checking them to the Hebrew texts and teachings. I am not saying that everything found in the Bible you read in some other language besides Hebrew or Greek is wrong. I am saying that you may not understand what the text is saying unless you know it or find someone who does. You need to understand that we really don't have as much of a translation as we have a transliteration of the Bible. There is a big difference. There is a group of good scholars in Israel working on a reconstruction of the Hebrew originals behind the New Testament. You can find them at Jerusalemperspective.com. As far as the Old Testament, I think you would be wise to get a copy of "The Torah Anthology". It is a set of commentaries on the Old Testament written by Jews and they include many interpretations for the passages from the most learned men down through the years. The folks at Jerusalem Perspective also know about the OT but they concentrate on it's relationship to the NT. While there are many commentaries, there is not what I would consider a "translation" as such. I am currently working on an understandable translation of the Gospel of John based on a Hebrew text. It is quite different than the English. You can alway ask me something if you want. Roy Blizzard III

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by RoyBlizzard3rd
Avast ye mate. The reason I asked If you really wanted to know is not facetious. I have many times started to answer questions for people who said they wanted to know but then were upset that so much they thought they knew was "wrong and they were going to have to learm new stuff. They became a little irritated.

man, that makes me upset... and a little irritated...

However, the New Testament as not held to be unchangeable until many years later so there was considerable modifications to the original documents for many years due to the audiences needs.

I guess that this will make a lot of people unhappy and maybe bring you some unfriendly posts. Anyway I'm glad that someone who studies Bible has the courage to recognize that some men are changing the word of God...

I am saying that you may not understand what the text is saying unless you know it or find someone who does. You need to understand that we really don't have as much of a translation as we have a transliteration of the Bible. There is a big difference. There is a group of good scholars in Israel working on a reconstruction of the Hebrew originals behind the New Testament. You can find them at Jerusalemperspective.com.

well I'm ready to accept that I may not understand what the Bible is saying (not to mention the parts that doesn't make sense at all) but my problem is that I'm not ready to accept some Jehova witness or some other "inspired" person other to interpret it for me. I'll check that site, and come back ... more irritated than ever

 

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

don't ever take anyones word for the "gospel", go look at it yourself. Good luck to you on your journey! You may be amazed at what you find out there that has been literally "kept" from folks like you and I over the years.RoyB3