Mythology with real places & people

Thank you for the exchange ...
Hope all is well. So far so good ... lol - so religious pranksters begin to refer to the Father as 'I AM', and whenever somebody says the phrase, 'I am', they are blasphemous. Nice ...First you said that Yeshua was put on trial for admitting to be the Anointed One, the Son of the God of Yisrael. Now you are changing your story.Nevermind that the question was not 'Are you the I AM?' or 'Are you YHWH', but rather simply 'Art thou the Anointed One, the Son of the Blessed?'.So, now you are apparently charging that Yeshua claimed divinity - which is it?Your dual charges appear to remain mutually exclusive.[emphasis added]Are we just posting random jew faqs now? Oh, sorry - that last point was probably meant to prop up this crooked shanty.You said HaMashiach 'claimed divinity for Himself'; is that what Yeshua meant by 'sitting at the right hand of power'?At first glance, I thought when Yeshua said 'ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power', he really meant He would be sitting at the right hand of another's power. Had you not interpreted that for us we may have never got that ...It should be fairly obvious to anyone who does not refer to God as 'I AM' that Yeshua was saying the phrase 'I am' in response to the question He was originally asked; that being, 'Art thou the Anointed One, the Son of the Blessed?'.Let's take a peek at the tenth chapter of John as well, where Yeshua's confused and angry siblings again attempt to cornhole Him.The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked,
'How long will you keep us in suspense?
If you are Mashiach, tell us plainly.'Yeshua replied,'I told you and you do not believe.

​

The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me.

​

But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep.

​

My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

​

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.

​

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand.

​

The Father and I are one.'So, as we can see, Yeshua was under the impression that various deeds that He had performed in His Father's name, like Moses before Him, testified that He was the Anointed One of Yisrael, the Son of the Blessed. Yeshua was in one accord with the Father, as Moses similarly was.At this point, the cultic defenders prepare to stone Him and, after a quick exchange, Yehoshua answers ... Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?'.This reference is found within the Septuagint, which, in addition to the standard Torah, Yeshua occasionally applies the term 'law' to, and is found, more specifically, in Psalms 82:6. One issue in this verse concerns the meaning of Yeshua’s quotation from the Psalm.It is important to immerse ourselves within the context of the Original Testaments; the whole line reads ...I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you'The Psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title ‘gods’ because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. Yeshua picks up on the term 'sons of the Most High' in John 10:36, where he refers to Himself as the Son of God.What is the argument here? It is often thought to be something like this: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, yet not be considered blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Yeshua?However, some will suggest this really doesn’t seem to fit the context, arguing if that were the case Yeshua would not be making any claim for 'divinity' for Himself over and above any other human being - and therefore He would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy.Yet, it does not appear Yehoshua was establishing any claim for ‘divinity’ for Himself over and above the acceptable interpretation - the rabbis were, in part, likely pissed that their precious logic was defunct (checkmate) and their primary source of income and sustenance had the potential to suffer immensely as a result.This is, evidently, a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater - a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (10:35). But granting that premise, Yeshua would seem to deserve, much more than they, to be referred to as a God, considering a bunch of corrupt poli-religious pranksters were getting away with it left and right, and makin' a killin' doin' it.After all, Yeshua is ‘the Word incarnate’, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to ‘save the world’ (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men ‘gods’ because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word ‘God’ of him who presents himself as the Word of God knowing full well He will not gain a penny?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Rrhain.
Hope all is well with you ... Perhaps there was a misunderstanding ...Although it was not in regards to the definition of blasphemy and what the term identifies within Judaism or elsewhere. As I can now see that you have not embraced the habit of referring to the Father as I AM in an attempt to cornhole the debate, and that you are being honest enough to admit that the response on Yeshua's behalf was indeed directed to the question that was actually asked, it would appear as though you are finally at a crossroads (rooow aaads - lol). I think you may be getting hung up by exchanging the original question posed to Yeshua with the distinctly different question 'Are you God?'; to which you conclude 'He claimed to be god'. I am not sure though, as you display some perdy fancy footloose footwork at times ...The thing is, you have also suggested within your response, strange as it may seem, that the text of the bible indicates 'that Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am."'; so, it becomes easy to consider that you are suggesting that Yeshua is depicted as identifying himself as the Anointed One, the Son of the God of Yisrael ... fair enough, I say. Unfortunately, it appears as though you may have stumbled into a musty pit of incoherency by stating 'Jesus claimed the power for himself. That was the blasphemy and for that, he proved that he could not possibly be the Messiah for the Messiah is a human being, born of humans, completely human, no divinity whatsoever.'.You have wisely shared that those within the religious traditions of Judea were not on the active prowl for human divination. So, one must ask, did the question repeatedly posed to Yeshua by the Pharisees reference a claim as an entity, as opposed to a claim of authority? A simple and honest rendering of the scripture, within a Hebraic context, reveals that Yeshua does not claim divine entity, as pagans - and yourself apparently - often suggested centuries later, but HaMashiach rather admitted his divine authority as a servant of God; a lone servant who loved God as a Father, and naturally exposed himself as a son. Granted, you can't tell that to conspiracy theorists, because they have all ready made up their minds on the matter.Nevertheless, a forthright attempt was made within Message 88 to help assist in an understanding of how, and what, the terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed' may have indicated, and expressed, within a contemporary Hebraic framework and in what way those terms may be applied to the particular episode you have chosen from the Gospel attributed to Mark. In that example, we briefly examined the dynamics contained in a similar scenario which is found within the Gospel attributed to John. Granted, the attempt was not exhaustive ...Perhaps it should have been though, as it now appears that a seemingly odd pattern as emerged wherein you (not quite) consistently impose and attach the accustomed definition of 'God' on to the distinctly separate Hebraic terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed', as can be seen in Message 42 and Message 95. Such a pattern could severly detour any honest attempt to understand such a text, if such a desire indeed existed. Alas, where my concerns once waned, they now begin to wither ...You see, the thing is, you exposed your competency for all to see within Message 132 when you explained to Peg that 'the construction of "ben elohim," literally "sons of god",' ' ... does not mean actual child.'. You continued to explain to her that the term 'Sons of God' 'It is not a reference to actual parent/child relationship but simply a description of class', which is, admittedly, a little misleading, but then you redeemed yourself by declaring something else that appears to be of great importance; you asserted that '"Sons of god" is of the same class as "sons of the prophets."'.I think many of us would tend to agree ...You were even kind enough to divulge how the term 'Sons of the True God' in Genesis 6 was 'not a reference to actual children but a classification of status and place'; seems, to me, to be on the money. This, consequently, appears to indicate that you have a semi-firm grip on how, and what, the terms 'Sons of the Most High', 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of the Blessed' may indicate, and express, within Hebraic thought.Yet, we are presented with a seemingly odd premise on your behalf (mine are consistently weird, I think, so they may not stand out as much):1) "Sons of god" is of the same class as "sons of the prophets" ... not a reference to actual children but a classification of status and place (Message 132)2) Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am." ... (Message 95)3) He committed the ultimate blasphemy: He claimed to be god ... (Message 42)Unfortunately, as I am evidently not misquoting you, your dual charges not only continue and appear to remain mutually exclusive ...Your disposition of honesty and logic employed appear similar.I will ask you again Rrhain ...Did 'Jesus claim divinity' or did Yeshua admit authority?Which is it? Often Judaism is thought of as a religion of cold, harsh laws and then contrasted with Christianity, supposedly the religion of love and brotherhood. This appears to be an unfair characterization of both Judaism and various laws derived from Hebraic thought. Love and kindness have always been a central part of Judaism. Pirkei Avot teaches that the world is based on three things:1) Torah (law/grace)2) Avodah (service to God)3) g'milut chasadim (commonly translated as 'acts of lovingkindness')The latter tenet of this teaching is perhaps drawn from Psalm 89:3 where it is declared that 'the world is built on kindness'. Within Judaism, this passage is more commonly translated as 'forever is mercy built'.The Talmud suggests that g'milut chasadim is greater than tzedakah (charity). The reason this is accepted is that, unlike tzedakah, many beleive g'milut chasadim can be done for both poor and rich, both the living and the dead, as well as allowing the opportunity to be performed with money or with acts (Talmud Sukkah 49b). The Mishnah describes g'milut chasadim as one of the few things that one may enjoy the fruits of in this world, with the principal remaining intact in the world to come. Linklol - nice joust ... although it seems as now the altar boy is preachin' to the choir.Anybody who skims through Yeremiah and Hoshea, as well as various others within the radical prophetic tradition canonized in scripture, while remaining honest and lending credit to their message, can come to no other conclusion. lol - I guess I get to ask you ...What does Isis, Horus and Tammuz have to do with this?In exactly what way does an ancient babylonian concept, rebirthed and employed as a lampshade by a bunch of poli-religious Roman wannabe-levite pranksters fifty years after the medieval crisis of the third century, apply to a conversation depicted in the first century between a bunch of zealous Hebrews and Yeshua?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange nuggin.
Hope things are good with you ... This is a debate forum; the burden of proof remains on you to support your claims with scholarly materials, or at least something of that nature. 'Check Google' doesn't work 'roun here that often as you likely know ...Perhaps you're a bigger conspiracy nut than onifre (or myself) - lol. I really don't take issue with your theory either way, but it seems good for us to at least consider that, whether BC/AD or BCE/CE or whatever else people dream up next, such identifications may continue on as merely euphemisms, concealing various poli-religious implications until the actual source of contention is modified.Help me gain a better persective of your view ...Are you sayin' that, way back in 525 CE, a master conspiracy continued an attempt to devise itself by setting out on a quest to immobilise the whole of mankind under a new numbering system, now commonly known as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era, based on an entirely fictitious character, just 'cause some pious Scythian monk that weilded a wicked imagination did not wish to continue the mildew'd memory of a tyrant who venemously murdered and persecuted any and all adherents to a specific sect of Judaism - based around a supposed imaginary Hebrew prophet - that had collectively come to be known as 'christians'; and so, the confused and silly Scythians decided to, on a whim, monkify a new column to the Easter table in which the new era 'Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi' was introduced, and then, with balls of brass, continued their lil' hijinks that would eventually, along with the latter discovered continents of the Western hemisphere, delude the whole of Western Europe from no later than 1422 CE until - perhaps - even our present day in age ?I mean, if so - that's remarkable; them dirty Scythian sonsa bitches had quite the imaginations ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thanks for the exchange Brian ...
Hope all is well. This is the risk associated with education ...lol - it does not often pay well.Even still, in cahoots with the liberal methods of presentation readily accepted, it appears that the variety and quality of substantiated materials often presented here may be responsible for providing EvC with a clear distinction from the endless host of mindless blathering pits flowin' heavy with verbal diarrhea while poisonin' the interwebz. lol - I hear ya. Peg has left me pissin' in the wind all too often ...But in all fairness, there are others, such as Rrhain, who continue this behavior with her concurrently.It appears as though nuggin naturally assumes his inability to provide any substantial scholarly evidence in support of his assertion that the Hebrew prophet who's rememberance became latched onto by the RCC was indeed imaginary; yet, he claims no less. Not for nothin', but it is easy to ignore someone when they are unwilling or unable to support their dogma ...You know that ... you were once a 'Christian' - lol It is evident, by the quality and quanity of his resources, that nuggin has debated nothing. Nevertheless, I appreciate much of what he attempts to explain ... First I would have to imagine them as wise.I'm still having trouble with that ...Thankfully.One Love

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good ... Are you suggesting that honesty is a hallmark of anonymous letters? The fact that you would present a question of this nature seems to indicate that authenticity maintains no value to you. That is craziness Peg.Below are three methodological areas of concern often employed by earnest researchers who intend to identify markers of authorship ...1) linguistic data sampling2) establishing the reliability of authorship markers3) establishing the validity of authorship markersSo, linguistics aside, when reliability and validity begin to seek priority towards your research, authors identities will perhaps become relevant. It should seem apparent that the content value may be effected by the genuine motivation of the authors in question.The value one places on the 'importance' of various works may depend, to a large degree, on the determination of reliability and validity that an author's character and reputation often provide.So, supposing the authors are reliable and valid, the content may be important. Yet, supposing the authors had more pressing concerns than reliability and validation, the importance may decrease.One may contemplate in what ways a fancified account of Yeshua's life, that interweaved various familiar religious traditions, may have provided a relief to the primary concerns that permeated medieval Rome, while considering it was likely one of the most prominent and final editors of its final masterpiece.Yeremiah tells us, matter of factly, that Levite scribes forged Torah documents to their own ends.Perhaps you may contemplate in what ways the Levite forgeries effected Yisrael as well.One Love

Thank you for the exchangw nuggin.
Hope all is well in your camp ... YOU DON'T TALK TO ME LIKE THAT !! (nah, I'm just kiddin' - I don't mind)lol - yea, I am still workin' on that one and havin' a bit of a hard time apparently ...Nevertheless, you present what seems to be a fairly tall claim, all things considered. C'mon nuggin - don't sink to fundamental depths ... the fact of the matter is you're not debating.Peg's lame attempts to discredit any substantive scholarly materials you provide will likey fall as flat as your own attempts when you decide not to support your claims. lol - you gave her 'Google'; not that it is necessarily scholarly, but I am assuming she already had it. You resort to similar tactics nuggin and one would have to be partially blind, or bias, to see otherwise.It seems too bad though, because much of what you are attempting to explain and understand about Horus and Yeshua appears very relevant imho. Now, you see, I would have expected that option from a fundamentalist; yet, I preserved a separate bias on your behalf.Perhaps a dogmatic is a dogmatic after all, but still ... I ain't countin' no chick'ns before they hatch. No problems mate ... matter of fact, I got nuttin' but love for the nuggin.One Love

Thank you for the exchange nuggin.
Hope all is well ... I am quite familiar with the mystery religion of Babylon and I believe your 'evidence' may lead to an extremely valuable conclusion. Imho, the 'Hebrew prophet was imaginary' theory does seem to oversimplify things, but that does not somehow give me the right to slander your imagination.However, as previously stated, it is not your particular theory that is on the gallows anyhow; it is, rather, the method of presentation employed, coupled with seemingly dubious resourcing, that seems to detract heavily from what you are attempting to explain and I think it is unfortunate. Nevertheless, I commend you, as I think we have a duty to one another to critique, or 'circumsise' if you will, our desperate and wonderful imaginations. Perhaps not; but, one can hope for education ...After all, our audience consists of more than Peg. lol - in case you haven't noticed, you can't believe everything she tells you. I like to think we are all capable of contemplation and consideration, although I understand, and at times share, your frustration completely.As you have pointed out, many 'Christians' do not actually believe in Yeshua or his Authority; instead, they, by choice, cleave unto a book. It appears that this book is then interpreted by them in such a way that they may give themselves over to lies (ie. winds o' doctrine), in order that they may suppress the more blatant ones that stare them in the face (ie. religious forgeries). Now, obviously, when you take their lil' musty book away, they become uprooted and begin to wither like any ol' dead fig tree does. In the end, it appears that most verse quoters are simply babes, fairly content with relying on their sky daddy to color the judgement for them and it is sad really; they are, perhaps, bound to disappointment.The Way of yeshua HaMashiach is not rooted in books; it is rooted in lives.The way of Saint Paul is often rooted in books; may peace rest upon him. I don't reject your information nuggin ...Simply your conclusion.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Rrhain.
Hope things are well with you ... No Peg, there was no point - lolThank you for your submission to Theology. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "wanting," specifically describing the section on the Sons o' God "dubious." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.One Love