|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2020 0:16:09 GMT -5
Whatever the truth of that matter, it's besides my point. What is it that you think Jesus told Thomas that would have made the other disciples throw stones? There were 1000 of stories started to emerge from second century something like you have shown above. So we don't have to analyse what they are!
What makes you so sure you can trust all those histories? From what we know of the persecution of the Gnostics, the Bishops at Nicea had good reason to want to discredit the scrolls found at Nag Hamdi. It's all (the entire "Bible") ultimately second-hand, so even if you dismiss it based on 1700-year-old politics, it's still pretty interesting that there's a parallel between your notion that people would have thrown stones, and that quote from Thomas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 0:27:16 GMT -5
Here's a rather lengthy exposition from Michael James in :Happiness and the Art of Being" that supports the notion that Jesus is a nondualist, that nondualism is the basis of all great religions.
The inner aim of all religions and spiritual traditions is to free us from this illusory state in which we imagine that we are separate from God, the one unlimited and undivided reality. For example, in Christianity this state in which we violate the oneness and wholeness of God by imagining ourself to be an individual separate from him is called the ‘original sin’, which is the root cause of all misery and unhappiness. Because we can become free from this ‘original sin’ only by knowing the truth, Christ said, ‘[…] ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’ (John 8.32). The truth that we must know in order to be made free is the truth that we are nothing but the adjunctless pure consciousness ‘I am’ – that ‘I am’ which is the true form of God, as disclosed by him when he revealed his identity to Moses saying, ‘I am that I am’ (‘ehyeh asher ehyeh’ – Exodus 3.14).
To ‘know the truth’ does not mean to know it theoretically, but to know it as a direct and immediate experience. In order to destroy the illusion that we are a limited individual consciousness, a person separate from the perfect whole which is called God, we must experience ourself as the unlimited and undivided pure consciousness ‘I am’. Therefore, to know the truth and thereby be made free from the illusion called ‘original sin’, we must die and be born again – we must die to the flesh and be born again as the spirit. That is why Christ said, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. […] Except a man be born of […] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (John 3.3 & 3.5-6).
That is, to experience and enter into the true state of God, we must cease to exist as a separate individual, a consciousness that identifies itself with the flesh and all the limitations of the flesh, and must rediscover ourself to be the unlimited and undivided spirit, the pure, unadulterated and infinite consciousness ‘I am’, which is the absolute reality that we call ‘God’. When we identify ourself with a body made of flesh, we become that flesh, but when we cease to identify ourself with that flesh and know ourself to be mere spirit, we are born again as our original nature, the pure spirit or consciousness ‘I am’.
The need for us to sacrifice our individuality in order to be born anew as the spirit is a recurring theme in the teachings of Jesus Christ. ‘Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal’ (John 12.24-25). ‘Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it’ (Luke 17.33). ‘And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it’ (Matthew 10.38-39). ‘If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’ (Matthew 16.24-26, and also Mark 8.34-37 and Luke 9.23-25).
That is, in order to rediscover our true and eternal life as the spirit, we must lose our false and transient life as an individual. If we seek to preserve our false individuality, we shall in effect be losing our real spirit. This is the price we have to pay to live as an individual in this world. Therefore, whatever we may gain or achieve in this world, we do so at the cost of losing our real self, the state of perfection and wholeness (which in this context is what Christ means by the term our ‘own soul’). In exchange for regaining our original and perfect state of wholeness, we have only to give up our individuality and all that goes with it. Which is truly profitable, to lose the whole and gain merely a part, or to give up a mere part in exchange for the whole?
In order to give up or lose our individuality, as Christ had done, he says that we must follow him by denying ourself and taking up our cross. To deny ourself means to refrain from rising as an individual separate from God, who is the whole – the ‘fullness of being’ or totality of all that is. To take up our cross means to embrace the death or destruction of our own individuality, because in the time of Christ the cross was a powerful symbol of death, being the usual instrument of execution. Thus, though he used somewhat oblique language to express it, Christ repeatedly emphasised the truth that in order to rediscover our real life as the spirit we must sacrifice our false life as an individual.
This sacrifice of our individuality or identification with the flesh, and our consequent resurrection or rebirth as the spirit, was symbolised by Christ through his own crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. By dying on the cross and rising again from the dead, Christ gave us a powerful symbolic representation of the truth that in order to become free from the ‘original sin’ of identification with the flesh and thereby to enter the ‘kingdom of God’, we must die or cease to exist as a separate individual, and thereby rise again as the pure spirit, the infinite consciousness ‘I am’.
The ‘kingdom of God’ which we can see and enter only by being born again as the spirit is not a place – something that we can find externally in the material world of time and space, or even in some celestial world called heaven. When Christ was asked when the kingdom of God would come, he answered, ‘The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you’ (Luke 17.20-21).
The kingdom of God cannot be found by observation, that is, by any form of objective attention – by looking externally here or there. It cannot be found in any place outside us, either here in this world or there in heaven, nor indeed is it something that will come in the future. It exists within us even now. To see and enter into it, we must turn our attention inwards, away from the external world of time and space that we observe by means of the limited flesh-bound consciousness that we call our ‘mind’, and towards our true consciousness ‘I am’, which is the underlying base and reality of the observing consciousness ‘I am so-and-so’.
The exhortation ‘behold’ that Christ used in the above passage is very important. He did not merely tell us the fact that the kingdom of God is within ourself, but exhorted us to look and see that it is within ourself. That is, he did not merely tell us the truth that he saw, but told us that we should each see it for ourself. In more modern English, we would express the passage ‘[…] neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you’ as ‘[…] and they should not say, ‘Look here or look there’, because, see, the kingdom of God is within you’. This exhortation that Christ makes to us not to look here or there but to see that the kingdom of God is within ourself, is the essence of the spiritual practice taught by Sri Ramana and all other true sages. We should give up attending to anything outside ourself, and should instead turn our attention inwards to see the reality that exists within us.
The kingdom of God is not a place but a state – our natural state of pure self-conscious being. When we see it within ourself by turning our attention towards the innermost core of our being, we enter into it and become one with it. This is the state of being born again as the spirit – the state of mystical union with God that all Christian contemplatives seek to attain. In this state called the ‘kingdom of God’, the pure consciousness ‘I am’, which is the spirit or true form of God, exists and shines alone in all the splendour and glory of its undivided oneness and unlimited wholeness.
The teachings of Sri Ramana thus throw a fresh light upon the spiritual teachings contained in the Bible. In the same manner, they also throw fresh light upon the spiritual teachings of all other religions. Though his teachings are easily recognised as a fresh and clear expression of the ancient teachings of advaita vēdānta, they in fact clarify the inner essence not only of advaita vēdānta but also of all other spiritual traditions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 0:30:31 GMT -5
There were 1000 of stories started to emerge from second century something like you have shown above. So we don't have to analyse what they are!
What makes you so sure you can trust all those histories? From what we know of the persecution of the Gnostics, the Bishops at Nicea had good reason to want to discredit the scrolls found at Nag Hamdi. It's all (the entire "Bible") ultimately second-hand, so even if you dismiss it based on 1700-year-old politics, it's still pretty interesting that there's a parallel between your notion that people would have thrown stones, and that quote from Thomas. Nope, we can't trust those books which has been written 2000 years ago. But my point is, all those writings which are considered to be the first century writings has the same kind of teaching more or less.
But Paul has gotten the information from Jesus's brother James.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2020 0:45:30 GMT -5
What makes you so sure you can trust all those histories? From what we know of the persecution of the Gnostics, the Bishops at Nicea had good reason to want to discredit the scrolls found at Nag Hamdi. It's all (the entire "Bible") ultimately second-hand, so even if you dismiss it based on 1700-year-old politics, it's still pretty interesting that there's a parallel between your notion that people would have thrown stones, and that quote from Thomas. Nope, we can't trust those books which has been written 2000 years ago. But my point is, all those writings which are considered to be the first century writings has the same kind of teaching more or less.
But Paul has gotten the information from Jesus's brother James.
But the reason for that is obvious: the Bishops at Nicea designed an institution and they wanted it to be a particular way. So, why trust that interpretation, why assign any greater truth value to their history than to what we might read between the lines about the other guys? Aren't they also, ultimately, the source of the claim that the scrolls found at Nag Hamadi were 2nd century writings? We know that there was a disciple named Thomas. Why wouldn't he have written his own gospel? We also know that he had a nickname that distinguished him from the other disciples. Your point about similarities applies to this gospel as well, as it repeats several stories/quotes/parables from the others.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 3, 2020 0:55:57 GMT -5
Jesus never never never said he was the God. If he had said, that would have been an outburst in midst of such a strong monotheist Judaism people. They would have killed him immediately. Jesus was crucified because he proclaimed himself to be the son of God. Son of God is not God. From the Gospel of Thomas: (13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up." Jesus said to Thomas, " Meet me at Kerala, India. There you will set up, with my supervision, the Good News ministry. If the others ask you why you want to go there, tell them honestly you want to learn Advaita Vedanta. "
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2020 0:58:31 GMT -5
From the Gospel of Thomas: (13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up." Jesus said to Thomas, " Meet me at Kerala, India. There you will set up, with my supervision, the Good News ministry. If the others ask you why you want to go there, tell them honestly you want to learn Advaita Vedanta. " (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 1:14:15 GMT -5
Nope, we can't trust those books which has been written 2000 years ago. But my point is, all those writings which are considered to be the first century writings has the same kind of teaching more or less.
But Paul has gotten the information from Jesus's brother James.
But the reason for that is obvious: the Bishops at Nicea designed an institution and they wanted it to be a particular way. So, why trust that interpretation, why assign any greater truth value to their history than to what we might read between the lines about the other guys? Aren't they also, ultimately, the source of the claim that the scrolls found at Nag Hamadi were 2nd century writings? We know that there was a disciple named Thomas. Why wouldn't he have written his own gospel? We also know that he had a nickname that distinguished him from the other disciples. Your point about similarities applies to this gospel as well, as it repeats several stories/quotes/parables from the others. We can't know which one to trust and which one not to trust . But what we are concluding here, the teachings are similar when they starts to teach but over the period of time, teachings are taking different form than what first century people believed. There was a sect named Ebionites who are jewish christian who doesn't even believe in virgin birth and still they believed in Jesus salvation plan. So how come know first century people are teaching the right thing? I can't know and that's not the point of argument too. They are all have a certain teaching and when it reaches to second century, the teaching deviates from Jewish roots like three person in One God. This confusion raged very high at 3rd century at the time of Constantine and all the argument is about the nature of Son. Constantine couldn't resolve this problem, So the fight between a Athanasius and Arius at the first council of Nicaea. Since most of the bishops are voted for Athanasius, Trinity came into being and Arius was banished.
Nag Hamadi were certainty later century writings! hope you might have heard of Gnostic texts !
Because he hasn't written any other books to check against his writing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 1:14:44 GMT -5
The most fascinating chapter in the story of Jesus can be found in John 10:33 and 34. Here the pharisees confront him with every intention of stoning him because he has blasphemed by claiming to be God. Jesus defends himself by quoting from a psalm where God says all the Jews are gods, "sons of the most high."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2020 1:48:15 GMT -5
But the reason for that is obvious: the Bishops at Nicea designed an institution and they wanted it to be a particular way. So, why trust that interpretation, why assign any greater truth value to their history than to what we might read between the lines about the other guys? Aren't they also, ultimately, the source of the claim that the scrolls found at Nag Hamadi were 2nd century writings? We know that there was a disciple named Thomas. Why wouldn't he have written his own gospel? We also know that he had a nickname that distinguished him from the other disciples. Your point about similarities applies to this gospel as well, as it repeats several stories/quotes/parables from the others. We can't know which one to trust and which one not to trust . But what we are concluding here, the teachings are similar when they starts to teach but over the period of time, teachings are taking different form than what first century people believed. There was a sect named Ebionites who are jewish christian who doesn't even believe in virgin birth and still they believed in Jesus salvation plan. So how come know first century people are teaching the right thing? I can't know and that's not the point of argument too. They are all have a certain teaching and when it reaches to second century, the teaching deviates from Jewish roots like three person in One God. This confusion raged very high at 3rd century at the time of Constantine and all the argument is about the nature of Son. Constantine couldn't resolve this problem, So the fight between a Athanasius and Arius at the first council of Nicaea. Since most of the bishops are voted for Athanasius, Trinity came into being and Arius was banished.
Nag Hamadi were certainty later century writings! hope you might have heard of Gnostic texts !
Because he hasn't written any other books to check against his writing.
But you can't really know that there weren't. Before the Nag Hamadi discovery the gospels of Thomas, Mary and Judas were lost, just rumors. We know all about Paul and his letters because that's what the Bishops that won at Nicea want to "Biblicize". Who knows what stories were lost, perhaps a whole trove of letters from someone very similar to Paul but with different takes on the message. Now, I understand this is speculation, but on the other hand, your insistence that the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century writing is nothing but the hearsay of political people with an agenda. You've got no more reason to believe that than I do to believe my speculation. There's no reason to trust those sources that say they didn't appear until the 2nd century - in fact, just the opposite, and the absence of evidence otherwise, isn't evidence of the fact of that case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 2:49:06 GMT -5
We can't know which one to trust and which one not to trust . But what we are concluding here, the teachings are similar when they starts to teach but over the period of time, teachings are taking different form than what first century people believed. There was a sect named Ebionites who are jewish christian who doesn't even believe in virgin birth and still they believed in Jesus salvation plan. So how come know first century people are teaching the right thing? I can't know and that's not the point of argument too. They are all have a certain teaching and when it reaches to second century, the teaching deviates from Jewish roots like three person in One God. This confusion raged very high at 3rd century at the time of Constantine and all the argument is about the nature of Son. Constantine couldn't resolve this problem, So the fight between a Athanasius and Arius at the first council of Nicaea. Since most of the bishops are voted for Athanasius, Trinity came into being and Arius was banished.
Nag Hamadi were certainty later century writings! hope you might have heard of Gnostic texts !
Because he hasn't written any other books to check against his writing.
But you can't really know that there weren't. Before the Nag Hamadi discovery the gospels of Thomas, Mary and Judas were lost, just rumors. We know all about Paul and his letters because that's what the Bishops that won at Nicea want to "Biblicize". Who knows what stories were lost, perhaps a whole trove of letters from someone very similar to Paul but with different takes on the message. We are analyzing the history so we can't find some kind of concrete evidence instead we can try to find which of them are more reliable. Whether some one else has written the letters of Paul in the name of Paul is not under analysis now. We assume the letter which proclaimed to have written by Paul is his letter and also we assume because these writing dated back to 48AD-52AD and also Paul has died on 65 AD.
There are seven epistles attributed to Paul that critical scholars agree are most likely actually written by him: 1Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, 1Corinthians, Galatians, 2Corinthians and Romans. The others that are attributed to him are most likely pseudepigraphical; i.e. claimed to be by him, but almost certainly written later by someone else who was trying to claim his authority. Critical scholars agree here that it's written by Paul but they do not know whether some body else has written in the name of Paul and you know nobody can know too.
Gospel of Thomas was started on early first century but ended at mid of second century and also this book highly deviated from the first century teaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 3:02:09 GMT -5
We can't know which one to trust and which one not to trust . But what we are concluding here, the teachings are similar when they starts to teach but over the period of time, teachings are taking different form than what first century people believed. There was a sect named Ebionites who are jewish christian who doesn't even believe in virgin birth and still they believed in Jesus salvation plan. So how come know first century people are teaching the right thing? I can't know and that's not the point of argument too. They are all have a certain teaching and when it reaches to second century, the teaching deviates from Jewish roots like three person in One God. This confusion raged very high at 3rd century at the time of Constantine and all the argument is about the nature of Son. Constantine couldn't resolve this problem, So the fight between a Athanasius and Arius at the first council of Nicaea. Since most of the bishops are voted for Athanasius, Trinity came into being and Arius was banished.
Nag Hamadi were certainty later century writings! hope you might have heard of Gnostic texts !
Because he hasn't written any other books to check against his writing.
Now, I understand this is speculation, but on the other hand, your insistence that the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century writing is nothing but the hearsay of political people with an agenda. You've got no more reason to believe that than I do to believe my speculation. There's no reason to trust those sources that say they didn't appear until the 2nd century - in fact, just the opposite, and the absence of evidence otherwise, isn't evidence of the fact of that case. You see, we are reading and trying to understand the books which were written by 2000 years ago. So It's tough to understand which one is correct and which one is wrong, but my observation is and my interest lies on how teaching deviates from first century to second century and to the third century and also how this small sect named Christians became world wide known religion after Theodosis The Roman Empire announces Christianity to be the official religion and banned paganism.
I am reading the first century writings, very early writings are of paul(50AD) in which he considers Jesus as a preexisting celestial being who born for normal parent via sexual intercourse and he died for human's sin and rose again to take the selected people to heaven. And then Mark comes on the way(70AD), he doesn't believe Jesus as a celestial being who preexisted instead as a normal person who was announced as son of God at his baptism and then rest are all same like why he crucified and raised. And then at 80AD, Luke and Matthew writes a different story(see how story deviates), they both say that Jesus was directly Impregnated by Holyspirit without the help of human Father, they writes this because they have to make him son of God. Paul is not in the need of this story because he believes in preexisting son of God(though he became Christ at this resurrection). And then John came at 90AD, his opening passage goes into some other level like word was god and thomas called him at the end 'my lord and my God'.
If you watch it carefully, these stories are deviating while the time moves. But one thing remains same in all these first century writings was Jesus was a son of God who died for sin's of the world and resurrected no where it says Jesus is God but later books started to say some other story which includes the books of Thomas so it's not under the consideration.
the question as to why these four Gospel's are chosen? there were 20 gospels were around at that time, but these four are circulation for the longest and very early writings.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 3, 2020 3:17:16 GMT -5
The most fascinating chapter in the story of Jesus can be found in John 10:33 and 34. Here the pharisees confront him with every intention of stoning him because he has blasphemed by claiming to be God. Jesus defends himself by quoting from a psalm where God says all the Jews are gods, "sons of the most high." Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Jews as gods not God. Demigods, or half-bloods, are a race of beings who are half-mortal, half-god. They possess mortal souls and are vulnerable to old age and death though longer than average human lifespans; however, their godly blood endows them with special abilities that allow them to achieve feats usually not possible by humans. Fast forward : Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews to prove they were not gods. Set up his own Aryan race.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 4:27:30 GMT -5
The most fascinating chapter in the story of Jesus can be found in John 10:33 and 34. Here the pharisees confront him with every intention of stoning him because he has blasphemed by claiming to be God. Jesus defends himself by quoting from a psalm where God says all the Jews are gods, "sons of the most high." Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Jews as gods not God. Demigods, or half-bloods, are a race of beings who are half-mortal, half-god. They possess mortal souls and are vulnerable to old age and death though longer than average human lifespans; however, their godly blood endows them with special abilities that allow them to achieve feats usually not possible by humans.
Fast forward : Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews to prove they were not gods. Set up his own Aryan race.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 5:21:23 GMT -5
The argument has been made that in Jesus saying he was the Son of God, he was claiming the attributes of God, in fact claiming to be God. The question is why did the High Priest tear his clothes during the trial of Jesus? What blasphemy did Jesus commit to call for this act? The argument has also been made that in Mark 14:61-63 when the High Priest asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, when he said I am, he used the most Holy name of God given to Moses: I Am That I Am. And so this is why the High Priest rent his clothes, and basically said, We don't need any more proof, we don't need these (false) witnesses. This Holy name of God was not even spoken, period. Some Jews even today will not completely spell out God, it being too holy, they write G_d. Now Jesus admitted he preexisted, in the parables and "Before Abraham was, I am". But preexistence doesn't mean he was the Second Person of the Trinity. John also speaks in Revelation of Jesus being "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world". So Jesus in some sense existed even before creation. Jesus also said: If you have seen me you have seen the Father. And: I and my Father are One. Just throwing out some things... www.bible.com/bible/compare/MRK.14.61-62 www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Holy_One/holy_one.htmlJesus never never never said he was the God. If he had said, that would have been an outburst in midst of such a strong monotheist Judaism people. They would have killed him immediately. Jesus was crucified because he proclaimed himself to be the son of God. Son of God is not God. preexisting Jesus? That depends upon which book are you reading. For Paul and John, Jesus was a preexisting Jesus. For Luke and Matthew, Jesus was not a preexisting Jesus. The above two beliefs of those people clearly connected to how Jesus was the son of God. For example, for Paul's Jesus was created even before the world, So he has already been a son of God. For Luke and Matthew, Since God directly created Jesus into the womb of Mary, Jesus was the son of God. And also Paul clearly doesn't believe in virgin birth either. Paul and John believed in Preexisting Jesus but Luke, Matthew doesn't believe such a Preexisting Jesus. You do know that God isn't a person don't you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 9:10:10 GMT -5
The most fascinating chapter in the story of Jesus can be found in John 10:33 and 34. Here the pharisees confront him with every intention of stoning him because he has blasphemed by claiming to be God. Jesus defends himself by quoting from a psalm where God says all the Jews are gods, "sons of the most high." Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Jews as gods not God. Demigods, or half-bloods, are a race of beings who are half-mortal, half-god. They possess mortal souls and are vulnerable to old age and death though longer than average human lifespans; however, their godly blood endows them with special abilities that allow them to achieve feats usually not possible by humans. Fast forward : Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews to prove they were not gods. Set up his own Aryan race. You missed the point. And relating Psalm 82 with Hitler in this context is as silly as saying HIV is God's punishment. Please. The point is Jesus equated his claims about God to Psalm 82's. So was he lying to save his skin or did he mean it?
|
|