Jesus Loves You,Love Him Back

[Wayne]

THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS

At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to the death penalty.



That was then the "worst" death. Only the worst criminals could die like Jesus. And with Jesus things were worst, because not all the criminals condemned to death could receive nails on their hands and feet..












Of course, nails... Big nails! Each was 15 to 20 cm long (about 6 to 8 inches long) , with a point of 6 cm (a little over 2 inches) .



The nails were craved into the pulses, and not into the palms, as we are used to hear.. In the pulse, there's a tendon which extends till the shoulder, and when the nails were being hammered, that tendon broke, obliging Jesus to reinforce all the muscles of his back, so that he could breath as He was loosing all the air from his lungs.



In this way, He was forced to support Himself onto the nail craved in his feet, which was bigger than those craved into his pulses, for both feet were craved together. And, as his feet could not endure for a long time without tearing, Jesus was forced to alternate that "cycle" so that He could breath.



Jesus endured that reality over 3 hours.

Yes, over 3 hours! Long time, isn't it? Few minutes before He died, Jesus was not bleeding anymore.

He was simply pouring water from his cuts and holes..



When we imagine Him injured, we only picture Him with injuries, but it is not enough; His wounds were true holes, made in his body...



He had no more blood to bleed, He only poured water.

Human body is composed of near 3.5 litres (a little over 3&1/2 quarts) of blood (for adult).



Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood; He had three nails hammered into his members; a crown of thorns on his head and, beyond that a Roman soldier nailed a spear into his chest.


All these without mentioning the humiliation He passed after carrying his own cross for almost 2 kilometres (about 1&1/4 miles) , while the crowd spat on his face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg (just over 66 pounds) of weight, only for its higher part (the beam) , where his hands were nailed). Jesus had to pass all this experience, so that you can have free access to God.

[brag]

I believe that it is the love of Jesus that matters most, and more of His love needs to be emphasized rather than his blood. Blood is a symbol for the killing of people for no reason, same as the killing of Jesus for no reason at all.

If God wanted to kill Jesus to teach a lesson in forgiveness or paying for original sin, why did he not do it himself, especially since he has the capacity to act as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in One, all at the same time and in one scene.

It would have been the noble of God to do the killing himself and free others from blame, as well. Why did God have to surround the story with blame on the Jews, and have them persecuted for years for no good reason? The persecution of the Jews needs to be answered by Christians in the context of the blood story, as well.

[adeodatus]

I believe that it is the love of Jesus that matters most, and more of His love needs to be emphasized rather than his blood. Blood is a symbol for the killing of people for no reason, same as the killing of Jesus for no reason at all.

I'm happy that you said YOU, keeping it within the realm of your own consciousness. Jesus, however, does not agree with what you believe about him, here what he said.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. (Mat 26:28) emphasis mine

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (John 6:55) emphasis mine

And, one of his early followers, Paul:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace, (Ephesians 1:7) emphasis mine

And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven.
(Colossians 1:20 ) emphasis mine

So, though you believe, that it's not as important, for people who want to get an accurate view of Jesus' mission, IT is important, in fact, if Jesus blood was not shed, we'll have no forgiveness of sin. Jesus atoning sacrifice is the MANIFESTATION of his love for us.

If God wanted to kill Jesus to teach a lesson in forgiveness or paying for original sin, why did he not do it himself, especially since he has the capacity to act as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in One, all at the same time and in one scene.

This is not why Jesus died for us. In fact, his Father did not kill him.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.(John 10:11) emphasis mine

and again

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.(John 10:14-15) emphasis mine

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18) emphasis mine

You clearly don't understand the Church's concept of the Holy Trinity. What you describe is modalism. Modalism is the thought that God is one, and ACTS as the Holy Spirit, then ACTS as the Son, then at another time ACTS as the Father. This is patently false, and is NOT the Christian concept of the Trinity. In a nutshell, the Christian Concept is, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. The key word there is DISTINCT. Not that God is one person (Father) and takes on different modes of existence.

It would have been the noble of God to do the killing himself and free others from blame, as well. Why did God have to surround the story with blame on the Jews, and have them persecuted for years for no good reason? The persecution of the Jews needs to be answered by Christians in the context of the blood story, as well.

God did not surround the stories with the blame of the Jews. The JEWS at that time, were, in part, responsible for the DEATH of Jesus Christ. His own people were the chief betrayers. History records that. Where do you get these stuff from?

PEace to all that love Jesus Christ.

[brag]

Do you really mean that the three persons in one God didn't act separately as in the Father sitting on his throne in Heaven, the Son being baptized in the river Jordan and the Holy Spirit descending as the Dove?

Logic tells me that the whole death story was also to make the Jews a persecuted people until their redemption by Jesus, a kind of paying for the sins of the murder of Jesus, not much different from the establishment of the story of the redemption of original sin, a story that lasts until the return of Jesus.

Aren't the same Jews the ones who must rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem in which Jesus must enter as a sign of His his return, his presence on earth and the exoneration of the Jews from the blame of the death of Jesus?

Perhaps these stories are not different from stories of Hindu and Greek Gods that became incorporated in the Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity and Islam as syncretic religions.

Perhaps M.M. Mangasterian may have wanted also to demonstrate in his parable about Jesus that the Greek religion never truly died or disappeared, but was only reframed as three Abrahamic, syncretic religions. It sure looks that way to me.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying anything is wrong with syncretic religions, only that it would be nice to admit the truth about them.

[brag]

Rest assured that my love for Jesus is beyond question, but Jesus also as Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara, Rama, Krishna, Sai Baba and all the prophets who came on His behalf or in His name.

My only hope and prayer is that my love for Jesus is of the same quality as in all His earlier incarnations or forms as His love for me, and that my love for Him is not based on his dying on the cross for some original sin for which I am not responsible, and the conditions for original sin which God himself may have deliberaltely created.

I am prepared to pay for my own sins and with my love for God, God's grace will always prevail. I don't expect anyone to pay for my sins without some effort on my part, not even my loving Jesus.

[brag]

This is the essence of mutual love between man and God from the book Love is my Message, Chapter 34. It deals with the question of how we truly know when God loves us and when we truly love God

You ask:
How will you know when I am near you?

When on a sultry night
Everything is hot and still
The first cool breeze
I am caressing you
THINK OF ME.

When the Pangs of hunger are satisfied
And loneliness is pierced by happiness
THINK OF ME.

When your mouth is Parched
And you can hardly speak
The first sip of cool water
I am soothing you
THINK OF ME.

When the cloud of death disappears
First on the opening of a baby's smiling eyes
THINK OF ME.

When I sprinkle your face with rain
And wash the earth, the dry brown leaves
The first smell of clean air
I am cleansing you
THINK OF ME.

When steadfast eyes are horrified
By the cruelities of life
The first glance of the silence setting sun
I am comforting you
THINK OF ME.


Then You ask:

How will you know when you are Near Me?

When the burning sun
Has scorched you and the earth
The sun and dust fill your eyes
Not a silver of shade about
AND YOU LOVE ME.

When the loneliness is accompanied by hunger
And not one can be satisfied
AND YOU LOVE ME.

When your lips are cracked
Your tounge feels like clay
Your throat seals up
There is no water about
Not ever of Mirage in sight
AND YOU LOVE ME.

When pain becomes unbearable
You smile
AND YOU LOVE ME.

When I take from you
Your most cherished possession
On the first loss of your sight
Darkness envelops you
AND YOU LOVE ME.

For everything that you see, hear, smell,
taste, or touch belongs to Me. So, how can you give
Me what I already am, your love? AND THAT I gave
to you before time began as your sole possession. When
you return it to Me, then I will know you are truly Mine and
I will dissolve your sorrow and happiness into Me.
That.....being Me, I place you in the bliss forever. For,
I Love you and think of you constantly.

From your Most loving,
Father.

[Wayne]

Hope that I did not start a "Holy War" :: :: ::

[adeodatus]

Do you really mean that the three persons in one God didn't act separately as in the Father sitting on his throne in Heaven, the Son being baptized in the river Jordan and the Holy Spirit descending as the Dove?

Saying the three persons in one God is a category mistake, this is not the belief, read again:"in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another." Read, three DISTINCT PERSONS!

Logic tells me that the whole death story was also to make the Jews a persecuted people until their redemption by Jesus, a kind of paying for the sins of the murder of Jesus, not much different from the establishment of the story of the redemption of original sin, a story that lasts until the return of Jesus.

Well brag, your logic is wrong. When Jesus returns, he returns for the Church i.e: all who believe in him for salvation, not the Jewish people alone, so your assessment is wrong here.

Rest assured that my love for Jesus is beyond question, but Jesus also as Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara, Rama, Krishna, Sai Baba and all the prophets who came on His behalf or in His name.

I can't say if you love Jesus or not, I cannot see in your heart. However, i'll quote what Jesus says about those who love him.

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. (John 14:15)

If you do, as you say then, what do you make of THIS command of Jesus?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,(Matthew 28:19)

and again

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. (Mark 16:15)

and my favorite

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(John 14:6) emphasis mine

Now, as I said, I cannot see your heart, but, Jesus said those who love him keeps his commands. How then does this compatible, with your view that Jesus is NOT the only way to God? Also, what do you make of the COMMAND to baptize people in the name of the Trinity? Do you follow that command brag?

My only hope and prayer is that my love for Jesus is of the same quality as in all His earlier incarnations or forms as His love for me, and that my love for Him is not based on his dying on the cross for some original sin for which I am not responsible, and the conditions for original sin which God himself may have deliberaltely created.

Again it goes contrary to Jesus, for he said:

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."(Luke 16:13)

Now here he talks about money, but his point is clear, you cannot serve two masters, in anything! You will either hate one, or love the other, that was his point. How does this fit in in your worldview of loving Jesus? when YOU claim you love Jesus as equally as earlier incarnations? Hwen Jesus made is clear that 1) No other incarnation, 2) youc annot serve two masters. It's just not adding up brag, you're being inconsistent.

You love your VERSION of Jesus, not the historical Jesus. For the Jesus of history, said that he did die on the cross to set people free! Paul, also confirmed that Jesus was the second Adam, the one to rescue us from slavery of sin! So, don't try to convince us that you love the Jesus of the Gospels, or the Jesus of history, you love the Jesus that you created in your mind.

I am prepared to pay for my own sins and with my love for God, God's grace will always prevail. I don't expect anyone to pay for my sins without some effort on my part, not even my loving Jesus.

Again, COUNTER to what Jesus teaches! So, how can you say you love the Jesus that PAYED FOR YOU SINS here him:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28 ) emphasis mine

and John

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) emphasis mine

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5 ) emphasis mine

So, COUNTER to what you think about Jesus, HE DID pay for your sins! This was Jesus understanding of himself, and it was the understanding of his early followers! Now, if you claimed you love this Jesus, care to tell us, why you disagree with him?

Peace of be with you!

[letric]

Ye Are the Light of the World

JESUS CHRIST - .30

Jesus was born at a time when his countrymen eagerly awaited the coming of a Messiah who would lead them to military or symbolic glory (as prophesied by Isaiah and others). He was baptised by a solitary prophet called John('Art thou he that should come?' asked John) and began his public ministry of preaching and healing. Jesus Christ had a popular style of preaching, using parables and proverbs, and His Sermon on the Mount has become the most famous and enduring speech of Christianity. When Jesus's preaching brought him into conflict with the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate sentenced him to death by crucifixion. Jesus's followers claimed that he was resurrected and was, in fact, God Himself. The message of the tiny Jewish sect has since spread far and wide, making Christianity one of the world's major religions.

[brag]

I said I love Jesus and you insinuate doubts. That comment was not necessary. I provided you with a poem by Sai Baba about mutual love between man and God. That says it all.

So Paul subsequently contradicted Jesus by saying not to go into Asia, meaning India where spirituality needed no new understanding.

Who was Paul, if not the founder of the Catholic Church whose Pauline teachings relegate women to the lowest class. But was the real Paul who never even saw Jesus Saul of Tarsus or someone else, like Apollonius of Tyana?

All the letters of Apollinius of Tyana became letters from St Paul, the syncretism that produced all our beliefs and our religions. Greek philosophers gave us our first copies of Christian scriptures. They were very familiar with Indian philosophies. Men lke Apollonius of Tyana made extensive travels to India and developed philosophies similar to those of Indians.

[brag]

The Sermon on the mount shows another form of syncreticism and is also without doubt as to its origin.

http://www.factsbehindfaith.com/default ... ntentID=13

The Sermon on the Mount

The sublime promises of the Sermon on the Mount have always been the crowning joy and the heart of the Christian message. The Beatitudes. Many scholars have accepted the Sermon on the Mount is a close copy of the scripture of the Essenes.

The original version of the Essenes was probably written two centuries earlier. It bids fair and sounds likely to be the words and the inspiration of the Teacher of Righteousness, the founder of the Essenes who they recognised as the long-awaited Messiah. We shall find they weren’t the only ones who recognised him in this role.

“And they who have died in grief shall arise in joy, and they who were poor for the Lord’s sake shall be made rich; and they who are put to death for the Lord’s sake shall awake to life.”

The Christian version gains style in its later translation of the same theme.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”
St Matthew Ch.5, v.3-12.

This particular source book is called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It was a great favourite among the early Christians and is much used and quoted by St Paul. The Gospels also quote liberally from this source. Here we can see only too clearly how Matthew worked.

“I was sold into slavery and the Lord of all made me free; I was taken into captivity, and his strong hand succoured me. I was beset with hunger, and the Lord Himself nourished me. I was alone and God comforted me; I was sick and the Lord visited me; I was in prison and my Lord showed favour to me; in bonds and he released me.”

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph 1,5-6.

“For I was hungry and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger and ye took me in, naked and ye clothed me, I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came unto me.”

Gospel According to St Matthew Ch.25 v.35.

Matthew repeats these lines again and again in an emphatic play upon his theme, he must have like the idea so much.

The gospel of forgiveness permeates throughout the Testaments and there occurs the first known conjunction, copied in Mark 12, 29-31, of the precept of Deuteronomy, 6.5. to ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,’ and that of Leviticus, 19,18, to ‘love thy neighbour as thyself.’ Jesus bespeaks the Essenes quoting Moses.

Other Christian apocryphal scriptures which we have discovered were originally Essene texts, actually mention the Messiah, the Christ. But he is not Jesus because he is much earlier. This Christ is the Teacher of Righteousness. Were the early Christians so luke-warm they would accept another Messiah, the Messiah of the Essenes, as interchangeable with their own, if the two were not actually identical ?

The early Christians clearly accepted the Messiah of the Essenes, the Teacher of Righteousness, as identical with their own Christ, Jesus, because they freely adopted the scriptures of this earlier Christ. This is explained by the Essenes’ conviction that the Teacher would return as the world Messiah of this later date, the first years of Our Lord.

The Messiah recognised by the Nazarenes could only be the reincarnation of the Teacher, according to the true tradition of Judaism maintained by the Essenes. Who else should he be – another Moses returned ?

The Nazarenes got everything from the Essenes, not only their scriptures. In Enoch the Essenes designate the Messiah in the same four titles he receives in the New Testament: “the Christ”, “the Righteous One”, “the Elect One”, “the Son of Man”. We can only say we know now where the New Testament deliberately copied from

Enoch is the closest sacred text to the time of Onias, parts of it being written before Daniel, after about 200 BC, that is during the life of Onias and presumably under his direction. Yet Enoch is recognised as an Essene text because it was inherited and developed by them, probably because the original authors went with them into exile, with Onias.

The Son of Man is a familiar phrase from the prophets but never before has it been referred to the Messiah. So in the time immediately after the murder of Onias, both the orthodox Jewish Book of Daniel and the Essenes’ Book of Enoch tell of the Messiah who has come and been rejected and killed. The ancient commentary on Daniel tells us this was Onias III but it’s only stating the obvious. It couldn’t be his father because his father wasn’t a martyr and there are no other serious candidates, no other eligible ‘anointed ones’.

This is material written some years ago in India. Now scholars are recognising yet another extract from the Dead Sea scrolls as a prototype for the Beatitudes :

[Blessed is] …with a pure heart
and does not slander with his tongue.
Blessed are those who hold to her [Wisdom’s] precepts
And do not hold to the ways of iniquity.
Blessed are those who rejoice in her,
And do not burst forth in ways of folly.
Blessed are those who seek her with pure hands,
And do not pursue her with a treacherous heart.
Blessed is the man who has attained Wisdom,
And walks in the Law of the Most High.
He directs his heart towards her ways,
And restrains himself by her corrections,
And always takes delight in her chastisements.
He does not forsake her when he sees distress,
Nor abandon her in time of strain.
He will not forget her [on the day of] fear,
And will not despise [her] when his soul is afflicted.
For always he will meditate on her,
And in his distress he will consider [her?]

From ‘The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English’ translated by Geza Vermes

More material will appear here in due course.

[adeodatus]

I said I love Jesus and you insinuate doubts. That comment was not necessary. I provided you with a poem by Sai Baba about mutual love between man and God. That says it all.

No it was not. You see, you say you love Jesus, and Jesus says "if you love me you will do what I command" I DID not say it...Jesus did. So, my question is, why don't you keep Jesus commands? For example: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,(Matthew 28:19) (Matthew 28:19) I'm only lining up what you're saying with Jesus' words, not mine.

So Paul subsequently contradicted Jesus by saying not to go into Asia, meaning India where spirituality needed no new understanding.

Eh? What are you talking about bring the verse so we can deal with it! It makes no sense declaring statements without any sold form of argument.

Who was Paul, if not the founder of the Catholic Church whose Pauline teachings relegate women to the lowest class. But was the real Paul who never even saw Jesus Saul of Tarsus or someone else, like Apollonius of Tyana?

His teachings relegate women to the lowest class? Wow...well brag, bring some of his teachings that do this. You and alien argue the same way. Just make statements without any real proof, or without any real, evidence. Just making statement won't cut it in serious discussions. So, until you provide some verses and exegesis of those verses, you have no real case. Also, Jesus was PAUL was the founder of the Catholic Church, telling Peter:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18) emphasis mine

Real Pual Appolonius or tyana? Well, if it was so, where are your arguments for that theory(there are none, but, I will let you try) Unless you offer some solid arguments you remain point less.

All the letters of Apollinius of Tyana became letters from St Paul, the syncretism that produced all our beliefs and our religions. Greek philosophers gave us our first copies of Christian scriptures. They were very familiar with Indian philosophies. Men lke Apollonius of Tyana made extensive travels to India and developed philosophies similar to those of Indians.

LOL again, brag, SHOW US THIS in history. Show, us when his letters of Apollonius became letters from St Paul? Show us where and how in history this happened. If as you say this happened why don't you show us brag, or offer some form of persuasive arguments FOR your points. UNTIL you do we have NO reason to reject what HISTORY records. I.E. there was a Historical Paul, that wrote the letters to those churches, which history shows WITHOUT QUESTION. So, if you want to overturn that, you need GOOD evidence....So far, you have brought NONE. So, your claims should not and will not be taken by me as a serious objection against the faith. So, unless you start offering good arguments, in the way of historical facts, literary similarities, etc, I won't reply to any of your stupendous claims.

Peace!

[brag]

Then you are also saying that St Paul did not love Jesus whole heartedly as he advised against going into Asia for proselytizing, and so he preached a contrary message from that of Jesus. Then did he receive salvtion or are we just guessing and not conforming to what Jesus said about who receives salvation?

Many will be called, but few will be chosen. How about that for salvation through faith in Jesus? And what happens to the majority whom we know will not be chosen?

Some say that salvation is based only on acceptance of Jesus as God. Others say it is based only on one's love of Jesus. Yet others say it is based on faith and good works. And more say it is based only on faith in Jesus. Who knows for sure on what salvation is based and how it is measured by the standards set by Jesus to provide the proof. It could mean that many so called true Christians don't even know Jesus.

Faith in historical personalities or just a concept of idealism is what is necessary for the complete transformation of the heart. Many non believers in God live successful lives and one would have to be able to measure salvation to know if they received salvation or not.

There were many holy personalities before the advent of Jesus, and they too provided the basis for faith and salvation. How can we measure their salvation? The M.M.Mangasarian parable about Jesus also speaks volumes about faith in God.

Well, I guess you might be the only one who can measure salvation resulting from only faith in a principle of God versus faith in Jesus. Your whole hearted faith in Jesus is that he said he was the only way, and that you can prove it only on your faith that it is true.

As soon as we begin to translate salvation to a belief in only Jesus, then the whole idea of the transformation of the heart becomes political and results in conflicts with beliefs that essentially center on income, hierarchy and other power structures for competition and dominance.

Your entire argument for God's existence as Jesus is based only on Christian scriptures. And why should it be any different, especially when Christian expansionism or proselytizing is one of its fundamental goals around which all logic about Jesus must comport with establishes systems leading only to true beliefs. And yet we know from scriptures that St Paul asked his people not to go into Asia. How about that for faith in Jesus and doing his bidding as love of God?

It is not too difficult to authenticate any story with people, names, places and witnesses. It happens every day and the gullible buys it, and promotes it while others do not. Whole religions are established this way.

Even the Quran which is believed to have been authored shortly after the advent of Mohammed rejects the divinity of Jesus. Outside the Bible, the Quran is perhaps the only book that mentions Jesus of the Bible in all of history, and why not, since it too had another mission of expansionism in mind, and a reason to deny the divinity of any other personality.

The same scriptures that are without proofs and only speculations about their correct dates and authorship you call Christian proofs of Jesus--some proof I would say. Your proof is simply St John says that Jesus said so, and logic in scriptures backs the proofs of St John for an only way to God and salvation.

The documentation about a fictitious Jesus is too numerous to provide, but you would not be interested in them anyway, because of your faith in Bible stories. To read and study them would be heresy.

The Forged Origins of the New Testament also speaks volumes about the fabrication of the Jesus story, a story that serves believers well for its principle of faith in any God concept, no different from what the successful and enlightened Greeks believed, and which resulted in our Christianity of today.

[adeodatus]

Then you are also saying that St Paul did not love Jesus whole heartedly as he advised against going into Asia for proselytizing, and so he preached a contrary message from that of Jesus. Then did he receive salvtion or are we just guessing and not conforming to what Jesus said about who receives salvation?

What are you talking about brag? You are not presenting anything for us to work with. Bring the scripture verse or historical document when Paul forbade this! So we can examine it. Unless you do so, you have nothing, and your objections must be ignored, for now.

Many will be called, but few will be chosen. How about that for salvation through faith in Jesus? And what happens to the majority whom we know will not be chosen?

What does this have to do with anything? All Jesus is saying here, is that, many will be CALLED by God, but because of their OWN refusal FEW will be chosen. How is this an objection to faith in Jesus alone? Nothing!

Some say that salvation is based only on acceptance of Jesus as God. Others say it is based only on one's love of Jesus. Yet others say it is based on faith and good works. And more say it is based only on faith in Jesus. Who knows for sure on what salvation is based and how it is measured by the standards set by Jesus to provide the proof. It could mean that many so called true Christians don't even know Jesus.

You are discussing MODES of Salvation ie: HOW the salvation is worked out. This does NOTHING to shake the fact that Jesus saw himself as the only valid way of salvation.

There were many holy personalities before the advent of Jesus, and they too provided the basis for faith and salvation. How can we measure their salvation? The M.M.Mangasarian parable about Jesus also speaks volumes about faith in God.

Yes they were, I'm not arguing this. However, WHAT THEY DID? Where they God? Did they said to have raised form the dead? Did they declare their death as an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the world? Most importantly, did they raise themselves from the dead? And you have NOT answered me STILL, how does all this fit in with what Jesus said...I AM THE WAY..not A WAY...THE WAY!

As soon as we begin to translate salvation to a belief in only Jesus, then the whole idea of the transformation of the heart becomes political and results in conflicts with beliefs that essentially center on income, hierarchy and other power structures for competition and dominance.

Nonsense! When Jesus said he was THE ONLY way, what was his political motivation? What income? and what hierarchy? Nonsensical claim.

Your entire argument for God's existence as Jesus is based only on Christian scriptures. And why should it be any different, especially when Christian expansionism or proselytizing is one of its fundamental goals around which all logic about Jesus must comport with establish systems leading only to true beliefs. And yet we know from scriptures that St Paul asked his people not to go into Asia. How about that for faith in Jesus and doing his bidding as love of God?

BRING the scripture that he said this, let us look at it. THEN we can come to a conclusion.

It is not too difficult to authenticate any story with people, names, places and witnesses. It happens every day and the gullible buys it, and promotes it while others do not. Whole religions are established this way.

Just saying this brag, is NOT an argument against the Christian faith. YOU must bring, your facts to back up this claim! Other than it it will be ignored.

Even the Quran which is believed to have been authored shortly after the advent of Mohammed rejects the divinity of Jesus. Outside the Bible, the Quran is perhaps the only book that mentions Jesus of the Bible in all of history, and why not, since it too had another mission of expansionism in mind, and a reason to deny the divinity of any other personality.

Only book that mentions Jesus Christ? Go do research...Then see if this claim stands.

The same scriptures that are without proofs and only speculations about their correct dates and authorship you call Christian proofs of Jesus--some proof I would say. Your proof is simply St John says that Jesus said so, and logic in scriptures backs the proofs of St John for an only way to God and salvation.

If you are saying this was teh only proofs I brought forward, you are being dis honest. No comment here.

The documentation about a fictitious Jesus is too numerous to provide, but you would not be interested in them anyway, because of your faith in Bible stories. To read and study them would be heresy.

Again, vague statement. And, don't' assume I won't be interested, I'VE BEEN asking that you bring ANYTHING to back up your claims. YOU HAVE NOT done it. Also, do you even know WHAT is Hersey? Reading or studying something DOES NOT constitute heresy.

The Forged Origins of the New Testament also speaks volumes about the fabrication of the Jesus story, a story that serves believers well for its principle of faith in any God concept, no different from what the successful and enlightened Greeks believed, and which resulted in our Christianity of today.

If you think that's the best argument against the Christian faith...I have nothing more to say. I ignored that paper, because it's content has been dealt with OVER and OVER and OVER. It's a waste of time.

Peace be with you!

[brag]

And so it was in the beginning and so it will be in the end.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saibabanews/message/31617

No churches I need
Nor do I need any temple
No Mosque I belong to
Nor any Holy place I travel
No Satsang I desire

Gave up the mantras
Gave up the tantras
Gave up the yantras

No Pooja
No Tirtha
No vrata

Gave up the rituals
Gave up the tradition

All is within
All is within

Neti, Neti, Neti

No Names
No Forms
It is all you
The silence.....inside and outside

You made me
leave everything
I come to you
leaving all behind
To be one with you
I found everything
in you
and
You in me

Neti, Neti, Neti
Neti, Neti, Neti..
Everything is nothing

[brag]

Simply guesses as if St Paul could not have explained it himself. Who ever bothered to ask St Paul why not. http://www.monachos.net/forum/archive/i ... -3528.html

Even the story of St Thomas going to India is a fabrication of immense magnitude, since for hundreds of years after the persecuted Syrian Christians who fled to South India, they never spoke of St Thomas. It was only after more recent proselytizing Christians arrived in India that they started connecting the Syrian refugees in India with followers of St Thomas, and established a place of martydom for St Thomas. It is all provable fabrication like many other fabrications. Now St Thomas, the early persecuted Chrisitans of Syria, Apolonius of Tyana and others were able to travel to India, but it was impossible for Jesus to make the trip.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8566081/The-M ... iva-Temple

View Full Version : Acts 16.6-7: 'Forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Asia'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macarius
15-02-2007, 08:00 PM
Hello,
I am having difficulties interperting these 2 verses, why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?
Thanks
Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kris
15-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Hello,
I am having difficulties interperting these 2 verses, why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?
Thanks
Michael

I remember reading something from one of the Fathers who said the Holy Spirit forbade them to preach to those people, at that time, because He knew they would reject the Truth. Therefore it was an act of mercy by which the people were spared the much greater condemnation that comes from knowingly rejecting Christ.

Later on, however, the Apostles ventured into Asia and spread the Word of God there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Father David Moser
15-02-2007, 11:32 PM
why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14?

This relates to the Church order which we also know from Holy Tradition. Asia was the "territory" of other apostles. By going there, St Paul would have been abandoning the flock that he was given by God and intruding on the responsibility given to another of the Apostles. I believe it was Nathaniel who had been given responsibility for that particular part of the world by the Holy Spirit and St Paul was given responsibility for Asia Minor, Greece and the Mediterranian. So this doesn't conflict, but rather acknowledges that St Paul was not the only apostle preaching the word in the world.

Fr David Moser

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.C. Steenberg
16-02-2007, 12:11 AM
I remember reading something from one of the Fathers who said the Holy Spirit forbade them to preach to those people, at that time, because He knew they would reject the Truth. Therefore it was an act of mercy by which the people were spared the much greater condemnation that comes from knowingly rejecting Christ.

Later on, however, the Apostles ventured into Asia and spread the Word of God there.

Dear Kris,

Do you know the patristic source of this? I'd be very grateful to know the larger text.

INXC, Matthew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Hegwood
16-02-2007, 02:45 PM
Is there a tradition that says they world was divied up among the apostles in some way. I'm aware that the tradition says that St. Andrew traveled as far north as Lake Ladoga and that St. Thomas ended up in India and St. Mark in Egypt.I can't say I entirely understand the territorial argument since St. John apparently had a number of Churches he was responsible for in Asia Minor ...wouldn't that overlap with St. Paul if that region was part of his responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Farrington
16-02-2007, 03:14 PM
Asia in this context does not mean our modern continent of Asia.

In Asia - See the notes on Act_2:9. This was doubtless the region of proconsular Asia. It was also called Ionia. Of this region Ephesus was the capital; and here were situated also the cities of Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia, etc., within which the seven churches mentioned in Rev. 1–3 were established. Cicero speaks of proconsular Asia as containing the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Carla, and Lydia. In all this region the gospel was afterward preached with great success. But now a more important and a wider field was opened before Paul and Barnabas in the extensive country of Macedonia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Charmley
16-02-2007, 05:37 PM
Dear Peter,

Thank you for this clarification.

In 1 Peter 1:1 it would seem that it had been left to St. Peter to bring the Gospel to this part of 'Asia', so it would seem at though this was a particular instance of the Spirit guiding the Apostles as He thought best, rather than any prohibition against preaching the Gospel in 'Asia'.

This seems to have been a hard time for St. Paul, if we judge by Galatians 4:13-14, but, as we are told in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10
12:9 And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness. Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Delayed in Galatia by 'infirmity of the flesh', prevented by the Holy Spirit from going to Ephesus or to Bythinia, he found his way to Troas where he preached the word; an example of several kinds here, for all of us.

Macarius asked:
How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?

It might be that the answer is that whilst it does not contradict the Great Commission, it reminds us to be mindful of the promptings of the Holy Spirit - and perhaps even that sheep stealing is wrong?

For me, it simply increases my admiration for St. Paul, who humbled himself to the will of the Holy Spirit and went where he was meant to go.

In Christ,

John.

[Wayne]

This is trulY the BRAG-ADEODATUS page........definitely theologians.

[brag]

Oh no...! I am not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, and I hope that I am not conveying such an impression. I examine with logic and common sense the little I learned from high school, college and everyday conversation things I do not understand. I understand God to be my own heart, and I consult with God, my heart, every day first thing in the morning for daily guidance. Then at bedtime, I thank Him for his guidance and repeat the process daily.

[adeodatus]

Please deal with the material in my posts.

Peace be with you.

[brag]

adeodatus, the material in your posts, from beginning to end, gives me the impression that you are mostly centered on a particular dogma, nothing else.

Everything from your posts is from scriptures and based on Catholic theology. I see nothing original from you in the way of creative thinking or willingness to consider any other thought.

You are not even willing to take a closer look at other religions to study how syncretism is reflected in them. As I was reminded, ancient religions never died. They were just incorporated into new religions, and given new life over time; the old religions of Egypt, Greece and Rome only seemed to have disappeared, but they never really died, as they are simply reflected in Roman Catholicism, and if you look well, you will find them there.

You may wish to take a close look at the influence of The New Age Movement and how religions evolve over time. That is the same in the Abrahamic religions. Eventually Judaism will disappear into a new religion, and so will Christianity and Islam.

You only have to take a close look at The Uniity Church, The Unitarian Church, The Church of Scientology, The Sun Young Moon Church, Bahai Church and others to see how the shifts were made from dogma.

Who knows how the Sai Baba Movement will evolve to change Hinduism? But not only Hinduism, but also Christianity, as there are hundreds of thousands of Christian followers of Sai Baba, including Catholic priests and nuns, and very large numbers from Rome itself, the very seat of the Catholic Church.

[brag]

God by any name still remains God. Happy Janmashtami (Krishna's birthday) to all, and may the love of Krishna flood all hearts. Hindus love Krishna with the purity of love for infants when they show their love for Krishna as a child and glorify Krishna by rocking an icon of Krishna in a palana or swing.

Love for Krishna and his later form as Jesus cannot be measured by man. The link below shows Krishna in all his beauty and in some forms as some hearts may know Him.

Hindus believe that any name of God is as powerful or even more powerful than any form of God itself. Always chant any name of God with love.

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare Hare.
Hare Rama, Hare Ram, Rama, Rama, Hare Hare.

http://www.krishnafestivals.com

http://forum.santabanta.com/showthread.htm?t=83103

[brag]

We must not let anyone fool us into believing that love has to be expressed this way or that way for God to accept it. God understands the heart, and that is all that matters. He gave us a pure heart and He wants us to return as a pure heart.

[brag]

Loving God as an infant is ancient in Hinduism. Worship of the Infant of Prague corrresponds with the worship by Hindus and the love of Krishna as an infant.

The link below brings some interesting pictures of the infant, Krishna, some five thousand years before He incarnated as Jesus and reminded his followers to take refuge in Him alone always as God, but not a different God.