Nucc, would you comment on the following?

Nucc, would you comment on the following?

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

March 2nd, 2010, 7:59 pm #1

Jesus did not come to bring a new message, or to start a new belief. He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to heal their backsliding, and bring them back into the fold of the gospel from which they had backslidden.

"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Quote
Like
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

March 2nd, 2010, 8:20 pm #2

Jesus who?
Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

March 2nd, 2010, 9:01 pm #3

Since this is a bible discussion forum, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that it is the Jesus of the bible story.

"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

March 2nd, 2010, 9:58 pm #4

The same fellow Paul, James, Peter and Jude referred to in their epistles?

If so ... why did none of them ever mention anything ABOUT the man they worshiped ... or even quote him?

James said, "Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you." Goodness me but that sounds SO different from the message delivered by Gospel Jesus ... and by Christian convention too!

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

March 2nd, 2010, 11:22 pm #5

Since this is a bible discussion forum, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that it is the Jesus of the bible story.

"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Appreciated.

Do you feel that the biblical Jesus - this supernatural man; born of an actual virgin; traveling the country-side; performing miracles; starting a movement; being a nuisance to Romans and Jews alike; getting himself killed because of it; coming back to life again; and all the while occurences of a supernatural nature directly related to this supernatural man's existence taking place, or so the stories go - was an historical person?
Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

March 2nd, 2010, 11:47 pm #6

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not Jesus was a historical person, but he easily fits into the greater story which runs with continuity through the whole bible. Not as the messiah, but as someone who was planning to become the messiah, or die trying.


"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

March 3rd, 2010, 12:09 am #7

The same fellow Paul, James, Peter and Jude referred to in their epistles?

If so ... why did none of them ever mention anything ABOUT the man they worshiped ... or even quote him?

James said, "Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you." Goodness me but that sounds SO different from the message delivered by Gospel Jesus ... and by Christian convention too!

-Vince
There are many problems with Jesus, not the least of which is the fact that "Jesus Christ", when translated in context, is "Saviour King". It stands to reason that whoever would resurrect the Davidic kingdom might be refered to as Saviour King/Jesus Christ.
Just as both candidates in a presidential race are commonly, and prematurely, refered to by their followers as "the next president", a man who planned to resurrect the Davidic kingdom might be prematurely called, by his followers, Saviour King/Jesus Christ.
Since the messiah would be directly succeeding Solomon on the resurrected Davidic throne, the followers of a pretender to the throne, might refer to him by Solomon's titles, which include "Son of David", and "Son of God". In other words; the gospel Jesus could have been anyone.

"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

March 3rd, 2010, 1:00 am #8

Maybe I didn't frame it correctly.

It seems to me that the apostle epistles knew absolutely NOTHING of any Gospel Jesus ..... or if they did ...... that fellow didn't register as being anything at all to them.

THEIR Messiah seems to have been a complete unknown, whom they anticipated and waited for .... to APPEAR. They only knew about this entity through visions and interpreted prophecy. Some thought that he definitely HAD come already but wasn't recognized in person by the main body of believers in their perception.

You get into the little Johns and belief that he HAD COME in the flesh ... was THEIR criterion for correct qualification. (If he HAD come -as the Gospels state- there wouldn't have been any controversy over whether or not he HAD done just that .... would there? I mean, no one starts a religion based on a founder who isn't obvious to everyone, do they? You never hear anyone arguing over whether Joseph Smith came in the flesh, do you? EVERYONE knows that he did. Yet, in the little Johns there are people leaving the fellowship because they no longer believe that he DID come in the flesh).

Beloved, believe not every spirit ...

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Then the Gospels come along to PROVE that he had come. They turned a wannabe King who had been killed ...... into the messiah expected to show up!

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2010, 8:01 pm

March 3rd, 2010, 3:45 am #9

I don't think that Jesus was a deceiver, but he really believed that he would resurrect the kingdom and become the messiah. The deceivers were those who made the dead Jesus into the messiah.

From the Roman takeover of Palestine, the Romans had been trying to trick the kingdom zealous Jews into abandoning their plot to overthrow the empire: They set up a pseudo kingdom with a pseudo king(Herod), and had him rebuild the temple to make him appear Solomonic. He did not convince the Zealots.
Rome killed Jesus to nip the Zealot movement in the bud, but Zealot action increased causing the Jewish wars. Rome twisted the term "Spiritual Kingdom" from simply meaning those who were committed to kingdom resurrection, to meaning that in the end the coming kingdom is only spiritual. Claiming that Jesus' death was God's plan was to get the Romans off the hook for killing him, and hopefully end the Zealot plots. Rome fially won when it drove the church underground, divided the underground church with all the current pagan doctrines, then brought it in from the cold as a universal religion with a universal creed. The apostolic church was strategically destroyed sometime between the 2nd and 4th centuries, and has not existed since.


"I do't speak for God. I only have honest opinion."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

March 4th, 2010, 6:29 am #10

... Rome and Paulinian Christianity.

<blockquote>You Said: Rome twisted the term "Spiritual Kingdom" from simply meaning those who were committed to kingdom resurrection, to meaning that in the end the coming kingdom is only spiritual.
While, I agree, Paul definitely had a Pro-Roman Agenda...
Paulinian Christianity, albeit Centered IN Rome...
-- Was NOT... "Rome".

Early persecution of Paulinian Christians BY Roman Authorities...
-- As evidenced in the Book of Hebrews...
Should be more than enough to tell anyone that...
-- The two were, indeed, separate entities.

-PRev1-
</blockquote>

President Barrack Hussein Obama

-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
Quote
Like
Share