Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 06:50 PM
Number of posts: 6,846

Journal Archives

He took what he had at hand.

For all he knew Jesus was a prophet. Either that or the Romans had it right when they crucified him for being the King of the Jews and their Messiah? It's a bit perplexing on how one answers that question.

The new covenant was exclusive to the Jews if the prophecy was fulfilled and if that's the truth of the NT. The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus as god. In that sense he was a prophet to them. He was not the Messiah they had been promised.

What else would Mohammed conclude? The Romans actually killed god? Can't happen. Even god made man to fulfill a prophecy? How can that be? God is god. There is god and all else. It is monotheism as he understood it.

The Jews were waiting on a King who would give them dominion over their enemies. They knew who god was. Their god delivered them from Egypt. Gave them his commandments. Sent his prophets to them. He destroyed cities.

Which when you think about it that explains why the religious of tribe condemned Jesus as a false prophet.

Which brings me to Saul. He didn't know Jesus. Yet, he thought Jesus would be OK with including the heathens into the holy light of redemption. Now we are back to the Romans being correct and the Jews have had a prophecy they were not expecting delivered to them.

If that's the case, the NT starts to make much more sense. Now not just the Chosen have a way into the kingdom of the One True God, everybody does. Mean while the Jews will have to wait.

Why would a prophet, of no lesser standing that Saul, not convince the many of a path revealed to him in a dream as opposed to a flash of lightening, be any less believing?

This isn't a test of your faith. It's just my point of view. You may dismiss what I said if like.

Authorship of the Old And New includes many nameless scribes.

It hangs together on the one god ethos and is carried along by a cast that repeats through out; the latter directly referencing its past to those most important to itself.

The New was edited to fit the requirements of a committee. Has anyone a copy of the original? Not that I know of. I ask myself, what's missing? Even among the known authors conflicts existed.

While the distance of the third volume's author(s) may not be to some people's liking, that script is linked to the foundation of Judeo-Christianity and that's not debatable.

It does make it a trilogy.
Go to Page: 1