Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place.

I can only talk about the theology since I don't actually have an opinion on this.

The hebrew messianic figure with which jesus is loosely associated is really derived as an extrapolation of old hebrew, pheonican, aramaic and early-greek scriptural representations of much earlier oral traditions within which the religion was once practised, well more of a system of government but that's basically the formative role of religion (to govern a peoples).

Essentially, at its core, the hebrew messianic figure of which xtians liken the jesus deity (or aspect thereof), is an ideogram of a conceptual statement written YHWH. This figure, YHWH is associated with elohim (literally 'to life'), which in good translation means 'god of strength' pentacostally. The hebrew term "YHWH elohim" is incorrectly translated in xtian bibles as "the LORD God".

It doesn't mean that at all. Never did.

YHWH is a person, it means literally 'military leader'. The degree of clear, demonstrable and obvious Platoic influence in the NT books which simply does not exist in earlier hebrew religion elicits the modern theological hypothesis that greek scholars of classically educated romans were attempting to utilize what was at the time an intriguing asiatic pagan mythology towards political agenda: to redirect an aristocratic focus in the roman world of conservative imperialism, towards a more fruitful endeavour of democratic reform. After all, it was the main difference between the romans and the greeks, and the romans had taken to educating their best and brightest in greece.

It's a bit like if Greenpeace got their hands on Wicca and started rewriting it as being all about saving the whales. So new generations intruigued or attracted to wicca would actually be supporting Greenpeace. Point being, white lie, good cause. But lie. It is definitely an out and out lie, lie and lie, no question. Simple research of primary source documentation with independent translation clears that up instantly.

Anyhoo, as controversial as the observation leads, the current theological understanding academically is that hebrew religion was originally pantheistic and not monotheistic at all, and Elohim is probably the closest word you're ever going to find to describe "god" concept, although it doesn't really mean that, and it's a feminine term, which would really annoy xtian pentacostals to the very core. YHWH is jesus sure, if you put him in a suit of shining armour and place him at the head of a huge army of israelites slaughtering their foes, as it is what the ideogram means.

In other words, the most original, primary source documentation of hebrew scriptures are not written in a phonetic language, and they don't translate very well into phonetic languages. And that, combined with subesequent political agendas involved, is the clear reason for obvious and in some cases entirely intentional mistranslations of a jewish governing system to become a xtian fairy tale.

Couple of simple examples: old-hebrew term for a foreign lord or knight, in xtian bibles mistranslated as giant or angel-born. The old-hebrew term for angel is actually mistranslated in xtian bibles about 50% of the time as devil, a word and concept which didn't actually exist prior to the 12th century by the way (it's a middle english word, no such thing in hebrew times). And the catholic term 'demon' is actually a mistranslation of a greek term that was used by rabbi in the 1st century to describe divine messengers.
There is no such thing as 'heaven' in any stretch of the imagination in the entirety of old-hebrew religion, and 'hell' which is actually a nordic term of the 7th century, loosely mistranslates the hebrew term 'sheol' which in fact means 'don't wind up destitute in a city whatever you do, your life will be very very bad', and it doesn't nor has it ever meant anything remotely otherworldly.
These fundamental xtian ideals are utter fictions. They just don't exist in the religion it claims to come from, at all, not in any way. Where they are found historically, is in the european rural pagan mythology of greco-roman times, not even slightly hebrew in origin.

It's all really nothing new. Same thing happened with egyptian revival. Their pagan religions were all but utterly wiped out by the end of the 1st century and experienced a few revivals over the next two millennia. But they were re-imagined innaccurately, and for example the pyramids went from bold examples of nationalist industrial potency in the face of any potential enemy, to 'doorways to the otherworld' which is utter rot. They were never that infantile, you'd could never accomplish such an undertaking if you were, and all empirical evidence infers the standing aforementioned hypothesis exclusively. Not magical vessels designed to perform magic, but intimidating monuments designed to intimidate. Clearly.
Compare a modern neo-egyptian pagan to a historical one and you'll find the old one laughing histerically at the new. That's how misinterpretation and ill-conception goes, it's the difference between the artist and their obsessed fans.

he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine...

What is human?

Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most high?

"Human" is a secular word. You will not find this term used in the scriptures except in maybe the newer translations, and things loose there meaning after being translated and translated and translated ect.

Jesus made man and woman, these are genders, nothing more. Or otherwise women would be a totally separate species then man.

And what's it matter if a part of his life is not included in the scriptures. The bible isn't a biography or autobiography of Jesus. It is a gathered collection of the scriptures that pertain to the salvation of man.

It is nice to see u on here. Your knowledge and Desire to know truth is commendable. It is like talking to a brick wall. no matter what u say they want to say oh well that was the OT. Like Yahweh made a mistake. when Zech 14 shows whats coming. and its not a jc I am sure u know what jc and j hovah means . but it is prophecy this would be. Great job. I like people who desire the word and learn for themselves. The Spirit works with those who desire to learn. May Yahweh of Hosts Bless u and Yours.

Num 6:22-27

22 And YHWH spoke unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 YHWH bless you, and keep you:

25 YHWH make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 YHWH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
KJV

Name what name Huh?

Isa 8:20

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV

To them this was a mistake Yahweh made.

Num 6:22-27

22 And YHWH spoke unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 YHWH bless you, and keep you:

25 YHWH make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 YHWH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
KJV

Name what name Huh?

Isa 8:20

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV

To them this was a mistake Yahweh made.

You ask what name? Well don't know what KJV you got that out of, but the king James version shows explicitly what name.

Numbers 6:22-27
King James Version (KJV)
22 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.


It is the Lord speaking eg., Jesus Christ.

You ask what name? Well don't know what KJV you got that out of, but the king James version shows explicitly what name.

Numbers 6:22-27
King James Version (KJV)
22 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.


It is the Lord speaking eg., Jesus Christ.

Exodus 34:14 (NASB)
—for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God—

Exodus 34:14 (NASB)
—for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God—

Also have to keep culture in mind/context. In that day and age people had names such as "Running Bull" and things of that nature. Yes the example is more of an Indian name, but nevertheless same concept. Now find a verse where someone is calling his name, Jealous. Nobody ever calls the LORD Jealous as in a name eg., "And Jealous said..."

And would appreciate you elaborate on things you've claimed in this post with third party sources, preferably two sources to each claim

Please do enlighten us with some links to cross reference the above statement.

Following definition comes from wikipedia. A bit different then your translation.

Sheol - translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead",

Hell is the abode of the dead, the grave. Sheol, grave, hell, are all interchangeable words for this same thing. That's why come the end of time, hell gives up it's dead for judgement.

Another example of how it's being said -

Psalm 76
76 In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.

People in Israel aren't calling out to someone named "great"

Hey Cowboy...



Why third-party sources when I'm talking about primary source references: the stelae and scriptural artefacts themselves, independently translated? You will need to do some legwork yourself regarding archaic linguistics. It actually isn't that hard if you do the academic work, old-hebrew isn't phonetic nor is it a constructive script, so the vital accommodation you have to learn to make when attempting primary source translations is that it's much more like translating japanese to english than it is latin to english (or hebrew into latin). Later hebrew and pheonican or aramaic are more like cyrillic to english, still nowhere near as handy as something like greek into english (which can still be ridiculously loose, angel begets demon going from greek to latin for example). But with a good imagination and some knuckle-down hard work anyone can do it if they were interested enough in the subject material to have done so before they started arguing about it.

Try the various .edu sites for reliefs and photographs of primary source documentation, and seek independent translations of those, then compare them for yourself. That's how you do it. Asking me to reference some other person to argue the points of another person isn't how you do it, if you had any actual interest I mean. Get off your butt and do some legwork if you want to know.

So many people in this world are caught up in the fairy tale misrepresentation of ancient working political systems that it hardly makes any difference to me what individuals think of my statements, they're for me because I feel like it. Now you go do what you feel like or don't. I'm really not your friend and definitely don't owe you any explanations. I now know, whether you do or don't is up to you, it's all there around you, not in my hands.



The old-hebrew characters srphm and nphlm mean foreign lord or noble entitlement. In the scripts mistranslated in published xtian bibles, say referring to Goliath, it is written as giant. Other places it appears in early hebrew script it winds up mistranslated as angel and half-angel respectively. It means foreign lord or descendants of one. It appears in early hebrew script specifically as a description of old hebrew law which states that when a foreign nobleman marries a hebrew wife and conceives children, they retain their noble title and holdings despite also being recognized as hebrew children from their mother side. At the time, in all other contemporary cultures when a foreign noble married a local woman, their children lost all title and holdings transferred to local authorities as a kind of dowry or it was simply abandoned altogether and they had to make their way from scratch in the new hereditary culture. That's why it's in hebrew scripture (ie. hebrews didn't do that), which as I mentioned is about law and government and not fairy tales. The xtian version is that it says angels married human women and conceived half-angel children which were giants. Not only is that completely infantile to any kind of adult perspective, it is also supremely arrogant, since you must first assume the authors were infantile in their world view to assert such a fairly tale as angels and giants as a basis of tribal government, finally it is quite simply a blatant mistranslation of the old-hebrew verse linguistically.

So you want to know about the veracity of this statement? Feller, look it up. Get off your butt and do some work, don't just sit there waving your hands to this and that. I find it lazy and arrogant.

The reason you offend me is you're more interested in an argument than the subject matter, if it were the other way around you'd have done a bunch of legwork you clearly haven't, and be discussing some point matter you clearly have no idea about.
When I discussed this with a theologist (qualified at university of jerusalem and member of a local science forum I haunted), we were instantly on the same page because he brought up coincidental point matter like the old-hebrew character mistranslated as "the divine immortal soul" in xtian bibles actually means "breathing" and its scriptural context is the medical declaration of a death, and nothing whatsoever to do with any afterlife. There is no afterlife in old-hebrew. Many hebrew passages that also appear in the old testament or other xtian renditions of them are completely inaccurate in this way, for this particular example the context is that a person may not be legally declared dead until they have stopped breathing, as other contemporary cultures allowed for the declaration of death and transfer of holdings to heirs when a person became unresponsive such as comatose, but not clinically dead. The hebrew verse says, only when the breath has left the body is a person dead. The character for "to breathe" is mistranslated as "the soul" so it forms the basis of the xtian belief that when a person dies, their "soul" leaves their body, and some pagan ideal of a spiritual representation of a being is assigned this term's meaning, which was really formalised by Plato in the Greco-Roman world. He was big on the "divinity of man" and it was a ridiculously popular assertion, I guess he was the first american.

It is very easy to mistranslate old-hebrew because it doesn't translate well into phonetic languages, what's worse is biblical scripts are largely translated from old-hebrew into aramaic, pheonican and early-greek, then from those into latin, then from those into middle-english and that's the language of modern bibles (oh ye thou etc.). It is very rudimentary as a written script, virtually all its characters are highly ambiguous and defined largely by context. Elohim can mean "cheers for the drink" or it can mean God, it all depends on the context of the passage, and really God doesn't exactly mean "God" anyway and never did. But those aspects you'll have to discover yourself through research.



Try some etymology ahead of wikipedia references. The word "sheol" literally means "the place in (mesopotamian) cities where the dead are burned". That's what it means literally, but colloquial usage quickly loosened this to represent the entire slum area of disease and impoverishment which coincides with the area in mespotamian cities where the dead were burned, stinking of disease, rotting corpses, burning flesh, homelessness and general extreme impoverishment, it became a colloquial of a very bad place to be, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean anything else. Like the old-hebrew word for "God" it's actually Mesopotamian in etymological origin. So's the flood-legend, elements of genesis and much other of earliest hebrew scripture.



Again, you might want to try eytomology before handing out late mediaeval period xtian mythology as some kind of contextual reference. Hell is a germanic word which really didn't exist prior to about the 1st century BCE and was very regional and exclusive, you'd never hear it south of the Rhine before about the 6th century CE. Hell (Hel) is a Germanic Valkyrie represented in Celtic tongues as Morrigan, later she became a Norse deity. The word Hell means literally "rotting corpse which lives", and it's a feminine term, meaning it's a deity, or a bad name you call someone, or the house of a bad person. Valkyrie means literally "battlefield horror" as in something really really bad you might see on a battlefield. It was the christianisation of viking mythology which mistranslated valkyries as being beautiful angelic agents of the gods (they later wound up as devils/erynies/sirens), originally "gods" didn't mean what we think of as "gods" today, they meant things like being burned alive, or rended to pieces by predatory animals, imagine the experience of that, that's what "gods" meant. The messengers of the gods, those were really bad omens, like your whole village being wiped out by plague, that's what a valkyrie looks like. Hel was one of those. Early monks helped mistranslate, through christian influence in colloquial, because like other early scripts and linguistics, nordic didn't translate so well into latin (so modern english is mixture rather than preferring one before the other and is thus both constructive and descriptive, in old times greek was often used as the catalyst to translate archaic linguistics into latin so you get gross mistranslation by default since the same terms in greek mean completely different things in latin), Hell became a place which was really derived from greek paganism, gehenna. The word they should've used was nifleheim, literally "the poisonous realm" which is where "rotting corpses that live" are to be found. In this context it's loosely an allegory of sheol, but sheol is an earthly descript with no connection to other dimensions, of which early hebrew religion simply had no concept of. There were no other dimensions with magical beings, just this one with regular people good and bad, like Lucifer, better known as Nebudchanezzar III ("the morning star"), or Goliath ("the foreign Lord").

Devil is a middle english word (deuil) which didn't exist prior to the 12th century, in concept or literally. Dark powers were called by name in pagan mythologies, which is where christianity adopted them from. The biblical rendition of "devil" which appears many times in all modern versions doesn't appear in any primary source documentation of scriptures, it arrived in modern bibles by mistranslation. In the 1st century many rabbi elected to use greek to translate old-hebrew as opposed to pheonican or aramaic, the greek word for srphm is damon, it means "divine messenger." This was retranslated around the 3rd century during early formation of the catholic church and its fundamental scriptures, into latin directly as demon, this means "ancestral spirit." This word was retranslated again into middle english as deuil. So that's how angels in primary source documentation became demons in fundamentalist christian dogma, and devil in modern bibles. It's just not written that way in primary source documentation.

Hell doesn't exist, there is no such thing as the devil or demons. That is the primary, most elementary difference between judaism and christianity, which claims its origins, yet utterly contradicts and degenerates it.

If you're really interested in this stuff, go and do your research, don't argue with me. I'm not going to respond. What you do with what I've written is about you, not me. I'm already more than satisfied with myself in life.

That's not what it says.
It says this:

Phonetically, in hebrew:
l.mntzch b.nginth mzmur l.asph shir:
nudo b.ieuede aleim b.ishral gdul shm.u :

Translation:
for it is so it is, together we sing of Asaph,
in Judah as you know, to live is the strength of Israel.




edit to walk you through it just this one time, and you see this is my whole point in its entirety,
forget how it was translated, what references are used (me actually but neither here nor there, irrelevent),
which translations makes more sense?

For yours we'd have to assume these political leaders and the entire political leadership were infantile mythologists talking about giant invisible bearded ghosts living above the clouds talking about and saying nothing at all whatsoever which makes any sense that a political leadership or its peoples can use to effect, with real working effect that actually works (in the way say, monarchism or democracy works actually works to effect).

For mine, we assume the author was actually an intelligent human being just as competent at politics and legislation as any modern human being with the same sized brain, and made a comment which makes perfect sense, in an archaic linquistic which demonstrably translates horrifically into any contemporary language.

And the answer of which is more likely in fact comes down to how arrogant you are. That's my point, and just an aside, it's kind of the point to judaism and the why and how of it, and several other semitic 'religions'. It's a secret they tell you the answer to, but you have to look and think to get it, and that's how they defined adulthood and elder status.
Is it making any sense now?

The whole of biblical quotation is the infantile version of things which actually make perfect sense to any intelligent, independent review, christianity is like a rebellion against adulthood. It's not leadership, and headsup, children are feral and dangerous until they force themselves to civilisation, no primate is born with it, and we're just everyday primates. That's what it's all about. Judaism was just trying to escape the conclusion of unqualified little vipers in the aristocracy of a class imposed society, which is how children make the world when they refuse to educate themselves and grow up. Christian fundamentalism, and all the published bibles where taken literally (pentacostally), they're a backwards step on this not a forwards one. Pentacostal jews by the way are called kabbalists.

That's not what it says.
It says this:

Phonetically, in hebrew:
l.mntzch b.nginth mzmur l.asph shir:
nudo b.ieuede aleim b.ishral gdul shm.u :

Translation:
for it is so it is, together we sing of Asaph,
in Judah as you know, to live is the strength of Israel.

Jesus didn't "become" God. Jesus always has been God and always will be God.

First you have to look at it from a non-religion form of way I guess you would say. The word "God" means authority, or well being of authority.

Jesus is our God because Jesus created us, molded us, and much more. Jesus is the Word before he became flesh. Don't know exactly where the term "Word" comes from originally.

And also have to keep in mind, we to are "gods". God gave us dominion over the beasts of this world, thus making us their authority, thus making us gods. Because that is exactly what we were made for, the incentive behind that is again beyond me.

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Notice the Word was with God and the Word was God, but how can this be? Not entirely sure if God's name is originally used in the original scriptures or not or if it is Jehovah. But even from the beginning it speaks of two different persons eg., Jesus and his father. Jesus isn't a brother, for 1 he is again the one that created us and 2 you'll never see a reference from Jesus saying "our" father. Is always his father.


Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


1 - notice again who formed man, "Lord" God. The different terms are used throughout the bible eg., "God or "LORD God" to show more specifically who did what, ect.

2 - then notice God formed man, then breathed life into him eg., gave him a soul. And also notice where specifically our souls come from specifically, God. Our souls aren't just a "creation". But are actually a part of God. Thus how we are "Children" of God.

"Man" is just a gender. We're not talking about a fantasy here where there are dragons and witches oh my lol.

"Genesis 2:7" again,
then we go to -
1 Corinthians 3:16
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Now all this talk about god"s" and yet there is but one God? Absolutely, again have to keep the words in context. Again the word God is a being of authority, so there can be many, yet one. We are gods to the beasts of this world and to some people depending on your position in life eg., bosses at work, ect are technically your "gods" using the word in context. They are the one's that tell you what to do at work, when to do it, ect. Not saying they have anything to do with your salvation, just an example on the word "god" and it's meaning.

he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine...

What is human?

Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most high?

"Human" is a secular word. You will not find this term used in the scriptures except in maybe the newer translations, and things loose there meaning after being translated and translated and translated ect.

Jesus made man and woman, these are genders, nothing more. Or otherwise women would be a totally separate species then man.

And what's it matter if a part of his life is not included in the scriptures. The bible isn't a biography or autobiography of Jesus. It is a gathered collection of the scriptures that pertain to the salvation of man.

What is human?

Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most high?

"Human" is a secular word. You will not find this term used in the scriptures except in maybe the newer translations, and things loose there meaning after being translated and translated and translated ect.

Jesus made man and woman, these are genders, nothing more. Or otherwise women would be a totally separate species then man.

And what's it matter if a part of his life is not included in the scriptures. The bible isn't a biography or autobiography of Jesus. It is a gathered collection of the scriptures that pertain to the salvation of man.

jesus made genders? ...