What was a reason to pay Judas?

[ABikerSailor]

The reason (I think) that Judas had to kiss Jesus was because the Roman soldiers who were with him to arrest Jesus didn't know exactly who Jesus was, and so therefore needed a signal for the soldiers to know who to arrest.

BTW Blue Phantom, I like your version of religion. My views are remarkably similar to yours, but instead of Hindu, I like to look towards the Judaic faith.

 

[foggedinn]

Zechariah 11 v 12, 13.
Scripture was fulfilled.

 

[BluePhantom]

That's a much more complicated answer than I could give here. I generally identify as one because it is easier than having to explain the intricacies of my beliefs to every person I meet or talk to. They are closely aligned with Christianity but I have some exceptions that, according to the precise definition of what a Christian is, would disqualify me as a Christian. But it's pretty close. Basically, it's Christianity with some Taoism, theoretical physics, and a touch of Hindu tossed in for good measure.

And what are these exceptions? Who was Christ according to your opinion?

Oh I see Jesus as the Son of God, but no more than all of us are. We are all Children of God and, in fact, Jesus suggested a few times that all He did we could do as well. In my opinion, it's simply that Jesus knew it beyond any doubt whatsoever and the rest of us have seeds of doubt that do not allow us to do what He did. So I see Jesus as being so tight with God, so wise, and so pure in faith that He could act to the fullest spiritual capacity that a person is capable of. I do not believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe He died and His spirit went to heaven. Perhaps He revealed Himself to the Apostles and such but it was as a spirit and not in physical form. So that's really what disqualifies me as a Christian. By definition, a Christian believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I am not willing to go that far.Now as a side note: I am NOT saying that Jesus was not physically resurrected or that those who believe in that are wrong. They could be absolutely correct. It's just not what I personally believe at this point in my life.

 

[HaShev]

Steve,
Hi,
I always read those tax verses to be more like only pay Rome what their due not that they should pay what they ask. It's like rationally acknowledging the services they benefit cost, but still seeking autonomy from authorities who want to milk them dry.

 

[HaShev]

Zechariah 11 v 12, 13.
Scripture was fulfilled.

Not so fast, none of the context fits, it's past tense and none of those events occured in the Jesus myth's day.
But worse you'd be admitting I'm right about the converged messiahs made a new image thus given new name and birthdate.
Zech 12:10 is talking of 2 seperate people not 1 person.
"pierce me(1), but mourn for him(2)."
By placing Jesus falaciously in scripture you placed yourself into a checkmate situation.
YOU'D BE ADMITTING THERE IS A WRONG AND CONFUSED WORSHIP OF THE WRONG CHRIST.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's a much more complicated answer than I could give here. I generally identify as one because it is easier than having to explain the intricacies of my beliefs to every person I meet or talk to. They are closely aligned with Christianity but I have some exceptions that, according to the precise definition of what a Christian is, would disqualify me as a Christian. But it's pretty close. Basically, it's Christianity with some Taoism, theoretical physics, and a touch of Hindu tossed in for good measure.

And what are these exceptions? Who was Christ according to your opinion?

Oh I see Jesus as the Son of God, but no more than all of us are. We are all Children of God and, in fact, Jesus suggested a few times that all He did we could do as well. In my opinion, it's simply that Jesus knew it beyond any doubt whatsoever and the rest of us have seeds of doubt that do not allow us to do what He did. So I see Jesus as being so tight with God, so wise, and so pure in faith that He could act to the fullest spiritual capacity that a person is capable of. I do not believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe He died and His spirit went to heaven. Perhaps He revealed Himself to the Apostles and such but it was as a spirit and not in physical form. So that's really what disqualifies me as a Christian. By definition, a Christian believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I am not willing to go that far.Now as a side note: I am NOT saying that Jesus was not physically resurrected or that those who believe in that are wrong. They could be absolutely correct. It's just not what I personally believe at this point in my life.

Truth never disqualifies someone as a Christian. Remember how we learn mathematics. Sometimes we don't understand anything - suddenly we understand and can see and solve new problems - or we know exactly why we are not able to find a solution for a special problem sometimes. There was a reason why god showed us the resurrction first with the eyes of three women - and there was a reason why Peter accepted nearly immediatelly their words. Think about what Peter did before the rooster crowded a second time. He knew this will happen and nevertheless it happened. Ask others: I guess there's nearly no one who believes in the triune god who did not also doubt first. It needs a good balance of thoughts and heart to find this spiritual way. Specially men are always living in fear to lose control about their thoughts - what's a good thing if we think about our agressions. But you could perhaps try to imagine the situation after a fight where you lost totally everything. What to do now? Whom to ask? Who has the real answer?

 

[zaangalewa]

Steve,
Hi,
I always read those tax verses to be more like only pay Rome what their due not that they should pay what they ask. It's like rationally acknowledging the services they benefit cost, but still seeking autonomy from authorities who want to milk them dry.

You are seeking autonomy from Rome? Ahem - the roman empire died two times: 476 in Rome and 1453 in Constantinople ... sorry: three times - the roman empire of german (=united) nation died in Vienna 1806. It was killed from a piece of paper and because of the military power of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Your anticatholicism is a little crazy. No one forces anyone to pay money to the holy catholic church. What you can see in the USA is this: Only one Catholic was president of the USA for 2-3 years before he was murdered. That's about 1% of the history of the USA (240 years). This shows the White House represents not every part of the society of the USA in the same way.

 

[aris2chat]

>>Theological interpretation
In Zechariah 11:12–13, 30 pieces of silver is the price Zechariah receives for his labour. He takes the coins and throws them "to the potter". Klaas Schilder notes that Zechariah's payment indicates an assessment of his worth, as well as his dismissal.[17] In Exodus 21:32, 30 pieces of silver was the price of a slave, so while Zechariah calls the amount a "handsome price" (Zechariah 11:13), this could be sarcasm. Webb, however, regards it as a "considerable sum of money."[18]

Schilder suggests that these 30 pieces of silver then get "bandied back and forth by the Spirit of Prophecy."[19] When the chief priests decide to buy a field with the returned money, Matthew says that this fulfilled "what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet." Namely, "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me" (Matthew 27:9–10). Although many scholars see Jeremiah's name as included in error,[20] Jeremiah's purchase of a field in Jeremiah 32 may indicate that both prophets are in mind.[21] Craig Blomberg argues that Matthew is using typology in his quotation, rather than "any kind of single or double fulfillment of actual predictive prophecy." According to Blomberg, Matthew is telling his readers that, "like Jeremiah and Zechariah, Jesus attempts to lead his people with a prophetic and pastoral ministry, but instead he ends up suffering innocently at their hands."[22] William Hendriksen argues that Matthew is referring to Jeremiah 19.[23]

Blomberg also suggests that Matthew may also be saying that "Jesus' death is a ransom, the price paid to secure a slave's freedom," and that the use of the blood money to buy a burial ground for foreigners (Matthew 27:7) may hint at the idea that "Jesus' death makes salvation possible for all the peoples of the world, including the Gentiles."[24]<<

 

[zaangalewa]

... So let's take it a bit more closely. Traditionally, Judas comes to Jesus and kisses Him. Jesus says "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" and then Jesus is arrested. Well actually, Judas only kisses Jesus in Matthew and Mark and Jesus says nothing to Judas about it in those accounts. It's only in Matthew where Jesus says "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?", and in that gospel, Judas didn't actually kiss Him. He just approached Him as if he was going to do so. So the scene, as it is traditionally depicted, is actually an amalgam of three different gospels and John is completely ignored.

Not a big difference there. Not a kiss but everyone was anyway convinced Judas loved Jesus. What are the possibilities for us?

A) Judas loved Jesus and did what Jesus was asking for.
not plausible: B) Judas not loved Jesus and did what Jesus was asking for
not very plausible too: C) Judas loved Jesus and betrayed Jesus
D) Judas not loved Jesus and betrayed Jesus

If A) would be true then the sentence in Matthew would be strange.

So most plausible: D) Judas not loved Jesus and betrayed Jesus [with a kiss, with a lie]

And now? Knows anyone more?

The simple answer is because all of the prophecies had to be fulfilled.

See: Zechariah

Even if this fulfilment contradicts human’s logic?

God is logos - so logic is not something what is only human - otherwise we could not use mathematics (="human spirit", "human arts") and experiments in nature ("matter", "universal spirit", "reality") and call both together "natural science". It was by the way the atheist Richard Feynman too, who made clear mathematics is not science - what makes physics a little mysterious. Some ideas like parallel universes are indeed only connected with logic in our world here and not in space, time, energy and experiments.

Unfortunatelly I don't understand the contradiction really - for me it's not a problem of logic because Judas betrayed Jesus. Not everyone who speaks in the name of god speaks really in the name of god. Everyone has to take care what to believe and whom to trust.

 

[HaShev]

No, Jesus (morning star's) death is part of the dying god scam of the canaanite rites of Athtar the fierce (look it up lazy),whereby the son of Baal must die to surpass his father on the throne as most high. As in a new mask for baal the father the church never names but makes evident with the borrowed Dec 25th birthdate and baal sun cross symbol.

 

[ESay]

The reason (I think) that Judas had to kiss Jesus was because the Roman soldiers who were with him to arrest Jesus didn't know exactly who Jesus was, and so therefore needed a signal for the soldiers to know who to arrest.

So, the soldiers were sent to arrest Jesus without anyone who could recognise him? (I mean except of Judas). I repeat it again - It would be understandable if very few people had seen Jesus in Jerusalem; if he kept a low profile there. But he was doing the opposite. And the soldiers had to rely only on Judas because no single person among the law enforcement services (I don’t know how they was called at that time, and I agree there were no contemporary police at that time, but some people did similar job, didn’t they?) could put Jesus out?

Unfortunatelly I don't understand the contradiction really - for me it's not a problem of logic because Judas betrayed Jesus.

Maybe you are right, guys. Maybe there is no contradiction there, and it is only my inability to understand that.

Oh I see Jesus as the Son of God, but no more than all of us are. We are all Children of God and, in fact, Jesus suggested a few times that all He did we could do as well. In my opinion, it's simply that Jesus knew it beyond any doubt whatsoever and the rest of us have seeds of doubt that do not allow us to do what He did. So I see Jesus as being so tight with God, so wise, and so pure in faith that He could act to the fullest spiritual capacity that a person is capable of. I do not believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe He died and His spirit went to heaven. Perhaps He revealed Himself to the Apostles and such but it was as a spirit and not in physical form. So that's really what disqualifies me as a Christian. By definition, a Christian believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I am not willing to go that far.Now as a side note: I am NOT saying that Jesus was not physically resurrected or that those who believe in that are wrong. They could be absolutely correct. It's just not what I personally believe at this point in my life.

I totally agree with you. I can accept neither the Jesus’ physical resurrection nor claims that he is God in human form. Actually, here is one more contradiction I am unable to understand – if he really did all these miracles, if there really was the physical resurrection, then how it was possible that there were so many sceptical people who didn’t believe him and his disciples that his teaching didn’t take root at the place where he was teaching? But that is rather a rhetorical question.

I am sure you have heard about Arius, haven’t you?

 

[BluePhantom]

That's a much more complicated answer than I could give here. I generally identify as one because it is easier than having to explain the intricacies of my beliefs to every person I meet or talk to. They are closely aligned with Christianity but I have some exceptions that, according to the precise definition of what a Christian is, would disqualify me as a Christian. But it's pretty close. Basically, it's Christianity with some Taoism, theoretical physics, and a touch of Hindu tossed in for good measure.

And what are these exceptions? Who was Christ according to your opinion?

Oh I see Jesus as the Son of God, but no more than all of us are. We are all Children of God and, in fact, Jesus suggested a few times that all He did we could do as well. In my opinion, it's simply that Jesus knew it beyond any doubt whatsoever and the rest of us have seeds of doubt that do not allow us to do what He did. So I see Jesus as being so tight with God, so wise, and so pure in faith that He could act to the fullest spiritual capacity that a person is capable of. I do not believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe He died and His spirit went to heaven. Perhaps He revealed Himself to the Apostles and such but it was as a spirit and not in physical form. So that's really what disqualifies me as a Christian. By definition, a Christian believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I am not willing to go that far.Now as a side note: I am NOT saying that Jesus was not physically resurrected or that those who believe in that are wrong. They could be absolutely correct. It's just not what I personally believe at this point in my life.

Truth never disqualifies someone as a Christian. Remember how we learn mathematics. Sometimes we don't understand anything - suddenly we understand and can see and solve new problems - or we know exactly why we are not able to find a solution for a special problem sometimes. There was a reason why god showed us the resurrction first with the eyes of three women - and there was a reason why Peter accepted nearly immediatelly their words. Think about what Peter did before the rooster crowded a second time. He knew this will happen and nevertheless it happened. Ask others: I guess there's nearly no one who believes in the triune god who did not also doubt first. It needs a good balance of thoughts and heart to find this spiritual way. Specially men are always living in fear to lose control about their thoughts - what's a good thing if we think about our agressions. But you could perhaps try to imagine the situation after a fight where you lost totally everything. What to do now? Whom to ask? Who has the real answer?

Well, not believing in the resurrection is a bit different than a Catholic using contraception. Belief in the physical resurrection is one of the primary planks that make up the Christian faith. It's something I have thought about, meditated on, prayed about, opened myself to God for guidance about, and, at the end of the day, I just don't buy that one. Now, people are dynamic and they change their minds. There are many things I believe now that I did not believe five or ten years ago, so perhaps I will change my position on this at some point in the future. But, for where I am right now, it's not something I can honestly say I believe. For me, it's the honesty part that is really important. One might cal me a believer with a skeptical modus operandi. That is, I don't believe in something simply because that is the tradition or because someone told me to. I research it, learn about it, look for problems with it, pray on it, and ask God for guidance and do my best to allow my true beliefs that reside in my spirit to be revealed to me. There are many people who go around professing belief about something, anything, when they don't really believe it. They have other reasons for claiming that belief. Sometimes it's that they simply want to believe it. Some are even at a place where they want to want to believe it. I am not one of them. But that's my path to walk and no one else's and I bear the responsibility for that path. We will see where it leads me.

 

[BluePhantom]

I totally agree with you. I can accept neither the Jesus’ physical resurrection nor claims that he is God in human form. Actually, here is one more contradiction I am unable to understand – if he really did all these miracles, if there really was the physical resurrection, then how it was possible that there were so many sceptical people who didn’t believe him and his disciples that his teaching didn’t take root at the place where he was teaching? But that is rather a rhetorical question.

I am sure you have heard about Arius, haven’t you?

Well I do believe He was God in human form. It's just that I believe we are all God in human form. In my concept of who and what God is, God is everything. That includes everything...all matter in the universe. God is the planets, the nebulae, the grass, the dirt, the DVD player, and the helium balloon. It also means it is us. That does not mean that 'we are God' but rather 'God is us'. I draw a distinction between the two. That's a very unorthodox way of looking at God, but it is what works and makes sense for me. Others might call that view silly, foolish, misguided, or downright blasphemous...but it's not their path to walk.

As far as the miracles and his teachings taking root, I think they did take root where He was teaching. It just didn't grow because most people stayed where they were and didn't travel a lot. It took Paul to really spread it around and make it grow. And yes, I am familiar with Arius and Arianism

 

[zaangalewa]

No,

¿No?

Jesus (morning star's)

Again: the only position where the word "lucifer" exists in the latin translation of the bible (NT) is 2 Petr 1,19: Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris ... = and we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

I gave you already some informations about and made clear that all this "Lucifer"-nonsense has nothing to do with the christian religion and is only a sensless anticatholic attitude. Seems to me you decided to ignore this informations. So I have to accept that you are only a preacher of hate.

death is part of the dying god scam of the canaanite rites of Athtar the fierce (look it up lazy),

No wonder that a preacher of hate has a problem with every god or godess who represents heavenly love like Athtar, Venus or Eros. Let me say in another way now: When you are able to see the light of the morning star - the light of love - soon the nearly endless dark night of your soul will be over. Don't close your eyes. Don't try to tell others there's only night and they will need no eyes nor laterns. Today we are celebrating the day Jesus went to heaven and started to prepare for us a home there. He will soon come back.

whereby the son of Baal must die to surpass his father on the throne as most high. As in a new mask for baal the father the church never names but makes evident with the borrowed Dec 25th birthdate and baal sun cross symbol.

Sounds a little as if you would be a fakir bareback riding in an rodeo on Christmas trees. Do you believe in anything what you say?

 

[BluePhantom]

I gave you still some informations about and made clear that all this "Lucifer"-nonsense has nothing to do with the christian religion and is only a sensless anticatholic attitude. Seems to me you decided to ignore this informations. So I have to accept that you are only a preacher of hate.

You are wasting your time. I have refuted HaShev's nonsense several times and provided supporting links and all that. He just goes to a different thread and says the exact same thing. I have found that unless you wish to chase him all over USMB refuting his same ridiculous claims over and over, it's easier to just put him on ignore. Personally, I am not a big fan of ignore. I only have three people on it, but they all share the trait that their conclusions are, in my view, so mind-numbingly idiotic that they are not even worth reading. A person who insists that Jesus claimed to be Lucifer makes the list.

 

[ESay]

Well I do believe He was God in human form. It's just that I believe we are all God in human form. In my concept of who and what God is, God is everything. That includes everything...all matter in the universe. God is the planets, the nebulae, the grass, the dirt, the DVD player, and the helium balloon. It also means it is us. That does not mean that 'we are God' but rather 'God is us'. I draw a distinction between the two. That's a very unorthodox way of looking at God, but it is what works and makes sense for me. Others might call that view silly, foolish, misguided, or downright blasphemous...but it's not their path to walk.

It is called Pantheism, isn’t it? I have heard about it, but I know about it even less than about the Gospels, unfortunately.

As far as the miracles and his teachings taking root, I think they did take root where He was teaching. It just didn't grow because most people stayed where they were and didn't travel a lot. It took Paul to really spread it around and make it grow.

Is that so? If I remember correctly the territory of contemporary Israel has never been the stronghold of Christianity. Christianity was founding its followers beyond this territory, at the lands where people weren’t familiar with a real life of Jesus and because of it they accepted with happiness the fairy tales about Saviour who was able to do miracles and who ascended physically to the sky.

And yes, I am familiar with Arius and Arianism

What do you think the most dubious statements of this teaching are? The statements you don’t agree with. In few words.

 

[BluePhantom]

It is called Pantheism, isn’t it? I have heard about it, but I know about it even less than about the Gospels, unfortunately.

It could be easily misunderstood to be pantheism. Like all religions (or for that matter political parties, sociological demographics, etc) there are various factions within pantheism. Some to do not believe in God at all but believe the universe is worthy of divine worship, shall we say. You might refer to that as pagan pantheism as the worshp goes to nature instead of God. Some believe that God is the universe. There are many variants. I believe that God is the universe but I also believe that God exists as an absolute entity as well. In my view, God is a dichotomy. In what I would call the 'relative realm' (the physical universe), God exists as the universe but individual elements are distinguishable. However, God also exists in what I would call the 'absolute realm' which would be the spiritual afterlife, heaven, whatever you wish to call it. Thus, God exists at the same time as all things together spiritually, and all things apart physically. I know, that's kind of odd....really odd actually...but that's just how I view it. So it has some pantheistic elements but I would not categorize it as such.

Is that so? If I remember correctly the territory of contemporary Israel has never been the stronghold of Christianity. Christianity was founding its followers beyond this territory, at the lands where people weren’t familiar with a real life of Jesus and because of it they accepted with happiness the fairy tales about Saviour who was able to do miracles and who ascended physically to the sky.

Well I think that is the result of how the Bible is written and pieced together. Most of the 27 books of the New Testament are written by, attributed to, or about the Apostle Paul. Paul's mission was to spread the word to Gentiles across the empire while the other apostles focused on the Jews. Paul was a very educated man and he was very successful in his ministry so we have writings of Paul where for the others we don't. We ave letters that claim to be written by John, and Peter, and Jude, etc but the vast majority of scholars view them as pseudepigraphic. So in addition to having documents from Paul and none from the others, we also see Paul working with a much larger geographical area. Thus we get the illusion that Christianity didn't take hold in Jerusalem or Judea. But actually according to Acts it caught on very strongly among the Jewish population. Additionally, one of Paul's main responsibilities was to gather a collection for the converted Jewish population in Jerusaem. This pre-supposes that there was one as it makes no sense to gather a collection for a population that did not exist.

What do you think the most dubious statements of this teaching are? The statements you don’t agree with. In few words.

Well first of all, I am familiar with Arius and have a basic understanding of the controversies associated with him and Arianism in general. I am far from an expert on him. I guess if you are asking for a specific point of disagreement it would be that Arius stated that Jesus was subordinate to God and was not God in human form. As previously stated, I believe we are all God in human form and thus I would stand in contrast to his view. So in a way, you could say that I agreed with the Catholic view during the Arian Controversy, but I would have taken it further to say 'there is not just a trinity, there is a spiritual unity that includes all things'.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's a much more complicated answer than I could give here. I generally identify as one because it is easier than having to explain the intricacies of my beliefs to every person I meet or talk to. They are closely aligned with Christianity but I have some exceptions that, according to the precise definition of what a Christian is, would disqualify me as a Christian. But it's pretty close. Basically, it's Christianity with some Taoism, theoretical physics, and a touch of Hindu tossed in for good measure.

And what are these exceptions? Who was Christ according to your opinion?

Oh I see Jesus as the Son of God, but no more than all of us are. We are all Children of God and, in fact, Jesus suggested a few times that all He did we could do as well. In my opinion, it's simply that Jesus knew it beyond any doubt whatsoever and the rest of us have seeds of doubt that do not allow us to do what He did. So I see Jesus as being so tight with God, so wise, and so pure in faith that He could act to the fullest spiritual capacity that a person is capable of. I do not believe Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe He died and His spirit went to heaven. Perhaps He revealed Himself to the Apostles and such but it was as a spirit and not in physical form. So that's really what disqualifies me as a Christian. By definition, a Christian believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I am not willing to go that far.Now as a side note: I am NOT saying that Jesus was not physically resurrected or that those who believe in that are wrong. They could be absolutely correct. It's just not what I personally believe at this point in my life.

Truth never disqualifies someone as a Christian. Remember how we learn mathematics. Sometimes we don't understand anything - suddenly we understand and can see and solve new problems - or we know exactly why we are not able to find a solution for a special problem sometimes. There was a reason why god showed us the resurrction first with the eyes of three women - and there was a reason why Peter accepted nearly immediatelly their words. Think about what Peter did before the rooster crowded a second time. He knew this will happen and nevertheless it happened. Ask others: I guess there's nearly no one who believes in the triune god who did not also doubt first. It needs a good balance of thoughts and heart to find this spiritual way. Specially men are always living in fear to lose control about their thoughts - what's a good thing if we think about our agressions. But you could perhaps try to imagine the situation after a fight where you lost totally everything. What to do now? Whom to ask? Who has the real answer?

Well, not believing in the resurrection is a bit different than a Catholic using contraception.

Ah - a joke. Lost in translation unfortunatelly. I know from a fellow countryman who is 28 years old and speaks 33 languages. He's never where I need him. Whatever - if you should think contraception is against the teaching of the catholic church then you are wrong. Contraception is a completly normal form of family planing.

Belief in the physical resurrection is one of the primary planks that make up the Christian faith.

But if god allows you [still] not to believe this then it's more important to be in this what you are able to accept from him. Be patient. There are lots of diamonds.

It's something I have thought about, meditated on, prayed about, opened myself to God for guidance about, and, at the end of the day, I just don't buy that one.

Very good. Don't buy it if you are not convinced.

Now, people are dynamic and they change their minds. There are many things I believe now that I did not believe five or ten years ago, so perhaps I will change my position on this at some point in the future.

In worst case you will never believe it. Maybe you should try to find out what this means for you. But I have the feeling you will understand one day more about - maybe even much more than I. Te future is open. We are not able to know the future result now.

But, for where I am right now, it's not something I can honestly say I believe. For me, it's the honesty part that is really important. One might cal me a believer with a skeptical modus operandi. That is, I don't believe in something simply because that is the tradition or because someone told me to.

Traditions means not to take everything. Tradition means to take the flame. Tradition is progress too, because we are taking the good from the past and bring it into the future.

I research it, learn about it, look for problems with it, pray on it, and ask God for guidance and do my best to allow my true beliefs that reside in my spirit to be revealed to me.

Don't worry. Relax. God is a nice guy, a very good friend. There's a reason for everything - even for the fact that there are sometimes no reasons if something happens what 's not so good - but not always are we able to understand now immediatelly. I'm convinced we are living in the best of all possible worlds. Unfortunatelly we are doing not always the best of all possible decisions. It's good to communicate and to learn from others.

There are many people who go around professing belief about something, anything, when they don't really believe it.

A problem.

They have other reasons for claiming that belief. Sometimes it's that they simply want to believe it. Some are even at a place where they want to want to believe it. I am not one of them. But that's my path to walk and no one else's and I bear the responsibility for that path. We will see where it leads me.

Don't worry. God will lead you. Maybe not always the way you like to go - hopefully not ways no human being likes to go - but wherever you will be: he will always be with you.

 

[HaShev]

Blue,
you obviously have a problem reading and telling the truth.
1) you never posted links or refuted anything otherwise I would have asked for a brief summary since linking is lazy and disruptive and I never trust to click them.
2) Since I teach Jesus didn't exist as a singular figure and that Rome created his image then it's Rome saing Jesus is Lucifer since they create his speach...did you not see the wizard of oz to know how that works? This is where you lie or are mistaking by not reading properly what I'm saying.
3) in understanding what I'm saying about creating his image previously showing where they plagiarize the OT we see they blunder everything they place Jesus in using the OT stories and verses.
This includes placing him into the OT accounts of
Rabbi Yohoshua Ben Chananiah who spoke of resurrection teachings.
Was Chana a town or was this Yshua (Jesus) visiting his father nicknamed Chana in the NT?
Why does Yeshu son of mary the figure used for portions of the Jesus myth teach of Egyptian underworld paradise in death he learned when fleeing to Egypt, and not resurrection teachings yet Jesus the icon created is opposite teaching life in "returning" (hashev) to life not life in death?

 

[HaShev]

Christianity teaches 2 opposing teachings on death and dying, litterally teaching knowledge that is good (resurrection into life-to see the benefits of your good deeds) and that which is evil (death cultism death worship).