Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 75 of 327 (506990)
04-30-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Peg
04-30-2009 9:32 AM


does scripture prophecy Supreme man-god ?
But he has been placed in a position of a god to us.
Many suggest that, yet does Holy scripture and Yehoshua place Himself in a position of Almighty God to anyone ... perhaps that depends on one's definition of 'God' and their ability to comprehend hierarchy (or rather 'extinguish/redefine' hierarchy). The Supreme mangod claim appears to have garnered popular support, not to be confused with authority, through a peculiar mix of subservient Romans, in concert with a 'remnant of Israel'. Tradition tells us that Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus was converted to Christianity suddenly, and by a miracle. One evening, during the contest with Maxentius, he saw a radiant cross appearing in the heavens with the inscription, 'By this thou shalt conquer'. The tradition is first mentioned in a work by Eusebius (De Vita Constantini) written after the emperor’s death.
In the fashion of Dante's everlasting impressions of Gehenna/hell, this miracle has been defended with ingenious sophistry by Roman-Catholic historians and a host of others, but does it stand the test of critical examination - in, either or both, knowledge and in spirit? The essence of Yehoshua is no where to be found in the 'first christian' Roman Emperor's personal life, not to mention the superficial political decrees (conquer in the name of Yehoshua Mashiach or the Almighty God - who do not exert force through armaments of physical aggression to obtain converts?!?). Additionally, we know from Yehoshua Himself that a 'wicked generation' may recieve a sign. Perhaps Constantine may have seen some phenomenon in the skies and he was likely convinced by the the superior claims of Christianity as the rising religion; but his conversion was a change of policy, rather than of moral character. We can distinguish them by their fruits ...
Nevertheless, the present author would not be surprised that Yehoshua filled various roles ranging from the first authentic King to the last divine Priest, yet He appears to consistently pass on the role of God that the people of His day - as well as since - repeatedly attempt to ascribe Him. After He is murdered, and consequently resurrected, various attempts to erase and degrade the presence and power of the Almighty Father of Yehoshua Mashiach seem to flourish. Nevertheless, the 'essence' - or the passions - of the Almighty Father and Yehoshua Mashiach appear harmonious and One, flourishing as well. However, one may easily recognize Mashiach's tendency to consistently paint Himself as subordinate to The Almighty - as opposed to an equivalent or one who supplants the Father’s presence. It appears Yehoshua did not desire to be recognized as His Father, but rather that the essence of the Father's heart and mind - as Yehoshua obeyed - may become prominent and recognizable to observers.
Various disciples (Peter comes to mind), and plenty others, are depicted stuggling in the Holy scriptures with the concept that Yehoshua was presenting, along with His method of presentation (telling the truth, etc.). There is a sense that it did not seem to align well with the preconcieved theological and socio-economical framework that their culture had imposed on them and that their spritual understanding had become tethered to; Mashiach encouraged them to seek union with the Father and displayed the Way to accomplish this effectively. Yehoshua humbly guides all, those who intend to enter covenant, towards the Father. Apparently He will not force a disciple though, as the essence of aggressive force does not seem to reside in the heart and mind of Mashiach or His Lord when dealing with the loved ones.
One can find (Phil. 2:9-110) the self-proclaimed apostle Paul declaring, 'For this very reason also God exalted Him [Yehoshua] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Yehoshua every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Yehoshua Mashiach is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.' Many then suggest the words 'in the name of Yehoshua every knee should bend' are meant to imply that one should 'worship' and pray to Yehoshua, while ignoring the concept that 'Mashiach is Lord to the Glory of God the Father'. Where is glory recognized - in 'a name' ... in the original essence of the name? The present author finds it is good to present a prayer 'in the name of Yehoshua' - or rather in the essence of Yehoshua, but they are typically, nevertheless, according to common reason (and Yehoshua’ instructions), addressed to the Almighty Father and ultimately serves to promote awareness of His essence, power and presence (Luke 11:1,2).
The scriptures again record Paul, perhaps for this reason, encouraging those gathered by saying, 'In everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God. Notice, clearly, the famous apostle to the gentiles refrains from including Yehoshua or the Ruach HaKodesh as recipients of 'petitions [to] be made known to God'. Yehoshua consistently met this distinction Himself when referencing His Father as 'God' and 'my God' (John 4:24; 6:27,46; 10:36; 17:3; 20:17,31; Rev. 3:2,12; etc.).
Just as a path leads to a goal, or destination, so it seems mimicking the holy example set forth by Yehoshua is the 'Way' that leads to God the Almighty; 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6). That is, a spirit that adopts the essence of Yehoshua - who has adopted the essence of the Almighty God - cannot arrive at any other conclusion than 'truth' and 'life'; Oneness with God, as confirmed by Yehoshua Mashiach.
The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked,
'How long will you keep us in suspense?
If you are Mashiach, tell us plainly.'
Yehoshua 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.'
At this point, the cultic defenders prepare to stone Him and, after a quick exchange, Yehoshua answered, 'Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?'. This aligns with a quotation from Psalms 82:6. Although the Psalms are not always considered part of Torah - or OT ‘law’, which usually referred to the five books generally attributed to Moses, it appears Yehoshua occasionally applies the term ‘law’ to the entire Septuagint. One issue in this verse concerns the meaning of Yehoshua’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. Yehoshua 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 Yehoshua? However, some will suggest this really doesn’t seem to fit the context, arguing if that were the case Yehoshua 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 (remember - Constantine eventually took full advantage of this end, seemingly employing a bit of a 'xians vs. the jews, nazarenes, etc.' flavor to his version of Rome's infamous divide and conquer technique).
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, Yehoshua would seem to deserve, much more than they, to be called God. After all, He 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 is the Word of God?
These words of Yehoshua, in addition to what has been attributed to Him in the first two verses of the eleventh chapter of Luke, may encourage us to see it is good to present our prayers to God with the essence of Yehoshua, yet not necessarily to Mashiach himself. Alternatively we can suggest that Yehoshua was claiming divinity, as the Pharisees did. Many do this by, instead of picking up stones, erecting and frequenting certain alters to Yehoshua. The fact that Yehoshua himself prayed to God - as His Father - on numerous occasions, may serve as evidence that He himself was tethered to a distinct spiritual authority. Yehoshua encouraged direct unity with this authority and provided the steps to undergo metanonia as well; the process may certainly involve idolizing the invisible essence depicted by Him.
Some parting words ascribed to Mashiach as recorded in scripture ...
'... For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’'
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 9:32 AM Peg has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 228 of 327 (507997)
05-09-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
05-09-2009 10:14 AM


Yehoshua's Metanonia
Please point out in the text where Jesus repented.
In the wilderness Yochan the immerser began preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins ...
Now in those days Yehoshua came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by Yochan in the Jordan River ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : bold

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:14 AM jaywill has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 229 of 327 (508003)
05-09-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jaywill
05-09-2009 10:40 AM


wicked and devious
The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin ...
Yet, the 'sin offering' would, itself, be without sin (blemish).
Firstly, in that any sin that maintains a possibility of existence is dissolved when one turns and becomes joined to the Almighty (unto whom Yehoshua was enjoined), and secondly in that the offering was performed and accomplished outside of the wicked and devious sacrificial atonement system associated within the Levitical priestly caste that had come to dishonor God. For if Yehoshua, in cahootz with the entire lot of radical Jewish Prophets, despised one thing mutually, it would seem to be the bizarre and crass sacraficial bloodshedding which, through the Levites impotence of mercy and justice, became the destructive blemish of Our Father's ancient Israel; and continues, unto this day, to poison the springs of salvation and wisdom Yehoshua established.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:40 AM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024