re: Christians: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love“

quote:

---

People love to talk about love, but God is also a just God. They like to leave that part out. There will be consequences for hurting the weakest of his creation.

---

This must be an element of this discussion. If God truly loves, he must hate. The Bible says he hates the wicked. It’s not something that is taught in church very often, but both are true… God loves, and he also hates.

quote:

---

It seems that whenever Paul says something that sounds concrete — born of a woman, descended from David

---

Except he doesn’t say that. Literally made of woman, made of the sperm of David. There was a Jewish Greek idiom “born of woman” referring to a human being, but Paul changed that to “made” or “come into being” rather than “born”. It is interesting. And made of the sperm of David sure seems like it’s maybe just their way of saying descended from David, until you realize that there were parallel myths from neighboring cultures where their god literally crafted a body of the sperm of some ancient dead person and age it to a preexisting subservient deity. Consider also the context of how Paul wrote Jesus was preexistent, through Jesus all things were made, the firstborn son of God, etc. if Jesus was preexistent and was the very first of the sons of God and was God’a instrument in creating the universe, seems to reason he existed before David. I don’t believe Paul was contradicting himself when he wrote of Jesus’ fleshly body being made of the sperm of David. Jesus started with a perfect angelic body, then was made low (received his fleshly body made of the sperm of David), then descended into the lower heavens where the archons there did not know who he was (Jesus was disguised) and they crucified him in heaven. This is what Paul believed and this is the literally story shown to Isaiah in Ascension of Isaiah… have you read it? Because you can’t really make sense Paul’s gospel - his theology - unless you’ve read it.

quote:

---

crucified, buried, meeting James — the move is to read it symbolically or as referring to a celestial realm

---

These are all compatible with the mythicist model. Crucified and buried in heaven. Then later Paul probably really did meet James. Which James? They didn’t have last names back then. Oh James the brother of the Lord (the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem) oh that one. Every baptized Christian was considered a brother of the Lord, so what makes you think of all the brothers of the Lord in all the churches, one - just one - was meant to be a biological brother?

quote:

---

In that passage he’s grounding Jesus “from a woman, under the law” within an argument about sonship and adoption

---

I believe that this means Jesus had a real human fleshly body during a time period when the Torah was in effect. Just because it was a real human body though doesn’t mean it wasn’t in heaven. Adam and Eve existed in paradise (Eden) which was in the heavenly realm. They fell - literally - to earth (not figuratively as in their status of sin or mortality). Paul himself writes he went to the third heaven but didn’t know if it was in his body or not. In 1 Enoch, he goes all the way up through the lower heavens to the seven heavens and it’s in the third heaven that his fleshly body begins to change into an angelic body. Same thing happens to Isaiah in the Ascension of Isaiah. It was their theology that human fleshly bodies could exist in the lower heavens but not past the third. This is a reference to their flat earth cosmology with 7 firmaments above the earth,

quote:

---

I’m not pressing resurrection or divinity — just minimal history. Is it really more natural to read all of this as symbolic of a heavenly drama, or that there was an actual first-century Jewish figure whose followers later interpreted him theologically?

---

For me, it’s natural only because I know enough about parallel myths like the Osiris set in history as a historical pharoah with Plutarch’s commentary that the historical Osiris was a story used to convert gentiles but that the mature cultists knew that the “real” Osiris died and was resurrected in heaven.

Is it possible that some crazy apocalyptic preacher got his arse killed by the Romans, and then his followers later claimed that he was Jesus/Logos that Christians had already been worshipping as a celestial deity for decades by that point - maybe. It is possible.

quote:

---

On Carrier and Price — I’m aware of them. Minority views can certainly turn out to be right. But historically they tend to win by explaining more data with fewer special reinterpretations, not more.

---

Have you read on the historicity of Jesus? I haven’t read his brand new one yet. That one apparently addresses some gaps and criticisms of OTHOJ.

quote:

---

So I think the key question is this: what, in Paul’s letters, would you accept as clear evidence of an earthly Jesus?

---

Paul could have started with a mention of Jesus interacting with some other person. Walking talking eating Jesus. Paul just never mentions anything of Jesus ever being on earth. Instead, he says they only know of Jesus’s death and resurrection by interpretation of “the scriptures”.

You got me before I walked out of the door.

On Romans 1:3 — “made of the seed of David” isn’t exotic language. “Seed of X” is standard Jewish idiom for lineage. It shows up all over the Septuagint that way. There’s no evidence Jews used that phrase to describe God literally crafting a body out of someone’s sperm in heaven.

And Paul adds “according to the flesh.” In his letters that phrase consistently refers to ordinary human descent or existence, not heavenly geography. When Paul contrasts flesh and Spirit, he’s talking about modes of human life, not which layer of heaven someone is in.

If Paul believed Jesus was a celestial being crucified in the lower heavens, grounding him in Davidic lineage “according to the flesh” seems like an odd and unnecessary move.

The mythicist reading is possible, but it requires reading covenantal Jewish language in a way that no other Jewish text uses it.

At some point it becomes a question of which reading is more natural in its historical setting.

quote:

---

in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

---

That Greek word for “appeared” is:

quote:

---

3708 horáo – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

---

So they know of Jesus literally from scriptures (Old Testament, Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, others) and spiritual visions. 1 Cor 15 isn’t talking about someone eating fish with Jesus.

quote:

---

Paul treats Jesus’ death and appearances as recent public events

---

No I think that is your twist or your interpretation but it’s not based on what is written in Paul’s letters. Paul writes that 500 people had a spiritual vision of Jesus.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Reply back to me where Hebrews specified Jesus as having been sacrificed.

---

“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:27-28

---

You missed verses 11 and 12 that mentioned Jesus entering the temple in heaven (not made with human hands, not of this creation) and spilling his blood there, not on earth.

quote:

---

Reply back to me where Hebrews specified Jesus as having been sacrificed. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:27-28

---

Maybe the author meant the gate of the temple in heaven that he was just mentioning a few verses earlier?

quote:

---

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11

---

I love this set of verses. Jesus didn’t start being equal with God and never attempted to exalt himself. He took on the form of a (human) slave, being made in the likeness of a human (using sperm of David). He died, and then God exalted himself, and only then did he actually earn his name “Jesus” after his death. Shoots down the whole Trinity idea, doesn’t it? It says “made”, not “born” in this one too.

quote:

---

Paul describes a preexistent being who entered human existence and died by a known Roman punishment.

---

I agree that he believed Jesus was preexistent and then entered human form taking on a human body… the opposite of what the Christians and Qumran community wanted to do… to take off their garments of flesh and put on garments of light (get new spiritual pneumatic bodies). Paul not once ever mentioned Romans doing the crucifying. He does mention the archons of this aeon killing Jesus. Romas didn’t invent crucifixion.

quote:

---

You don’t have to accept the theological claims, but the earliest Christian writings treat Jesus as a recent historical person.

---

I couldn’t disagree more. Those earliest (pre-gospel) writings including Paul’s 7 letters plus Colossians and Ephesians and 1 Peter and James and Jude and Hebrews and Revelation and the ascension of Isaiah never once mention a historical earthly Jesus.

quote:

---

Paul and Hebrews do not argue that Jesus existed; they presuppose it.

---

Of course they believed Jesus existed! Just not ever on earth. His coming to earth was supposed to be a future event when he’d come to destroy and remake the heavens and earth and judge the living and the dead.

quote:

---

Their theology is built on a human life, a public execution by Roman crucifixion

---

Human life sort of (a short period of time in heaven and being killed in heaven). Public execution my Romans? Not one single letter I just mentions say anything about a Roman killing Jesus. Many of those letters though refer to Jesus killed in heaven.

quote:

---

and named contemporaries within living memory

---

Just Kephas and James.

Hey I was in the woods 30 years ago with 500 of my buddies and we saw Bigfoot. Some of them are gone but some are still kicking but they live too far away for you to go to talk to them. Don’t worry about their names. You believe me, right?

Real Christians practice love via their works and worship as the first hand account of Jesus teaches. Not platitudes or virtue signaling like liberals or woke corporations spew with no sacrifice or sincerity. And not what a pipe or preacher or Buddha or shaman or mullah says. You don’t have to self promote by saying things that you can’t easily do in private. The humble and meek and devoted and the charitable, not the narcissistic and self centered or self righteousness or judgmental of prideful or insincere do as I say not as I do, people is, IMO what god wants of us.

If you want a guide just read the 10 commandments or the beattitudes directly from god and Jesus from his sermon on the mount.

quote:

---

3708 horáo

---

https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

quote:

---

Overview of New Testament Usage

With nearly seven hundred occurrences, horáo and its compound or cognate forms saturate the New Testament record. The verb ranges from ordinary eyesight to the highest reaches of prophetic revelation, creating a thread that unites narrative, doctrine, and exhortation. Whether describing fishermen who “saw” Jesus walking (Matthew 4:18), apostles who “cannot stop speaking about what we have seen” (Acts 4:20), or every eye that “will see Him” at His return (Revelation 1:7), the term bears tremendous theological weight.

Physical Sight in Historical Narrative

1. Everyday observation: Jesus “saw Simon and Andrew” casting nets (Mark 1:16); the widow’s two mites were “seen” by Him in the temple (Luke 21:1-2).
2. Miraculous healings: Onlookers “saw” lame men walk (Mark 2:12) and reacted with awe, linking physical sight to the recognition of divine power.
3. Recognition moments: Levi “saw” and followed (Mark 2:14); Zacchaeus climbed a tree “to see Jesus” (Luke 19:4), illustrating that pure curiosity can become saving encounter.

---

Our local Russellite is at it again.

I guess he would rather spend his time here than at the watchtower.

quote:

---

3708 horáo
:retardface:
LINK

---

quote:

---

The verb ranges from ordinary eyesight to the highest reaches of prophetic revelation

---

1 Cor 15:5
kai hoti ophthe Kepha
And he was seen by Kephas

Genesis 12:7
ophthe de kyrios to Abram
The LORD was seen by Abram

You’ve heard the saying, there is not hate like Christian love

quote:

---

Genesis 12:7

---

Wtf genesis wasn't written in Greek, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a translated word and an original word.

Even so, your Jehovah's Witness brain cannot understand that the word is used for normal sight many times.

quote:

---

Unlike neurotypical people who often switch between literal and figurative meanings automatically, many autistic people use a "manual scanning process" for non-literal meanings.

---

You are claiming that your interpretation is the only valid one.

It's because the watchtower gets the weakest minded to follow what some con man badly put together. That place is full of autistic people who can't handle normal theology.

So since reading that website is obviously well beyond your capabilities. Let me state this simpler.

When a word in any language is used the plain meaning is evaluated first to see authors intent.

Only then are metaphorical meanings considered.

You jumped straight to metaphorical because in English like any other language words do have both meanings, but you some how pretended it could not have a non metaphorical meaning.

I await your further response to boost your self-esteem because you are convinced that you "must be intelligent".

One piece of advice, the least intelligent people always insist they are right, they rob themselves of room to grow and learn.

But you do you.

quote:

---

Wtf genesis wasn't written in Greek, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew.

---

You so smart

quote:

---

the word is used for normal sight many times

---

I never said it wasn’t, Strawman.

quote:

---

You are claiming that your interpretation is the only valid one.

---

I’m attempting to persuade based on my belief based on the evidence. It’s perfectly logical based on the grammar and vocabulary for it to mean ordinary sight of something or someone. But I don’t believe that is the right interpretation because that verb also is used for metaphorical and revelatory sight such as visions of deities. Did you like my example of when Abraham saw the Lord? Can YOU acknowledge the reality that it SOMETIMES means a heavenly vision or revelation? Can you acknowledge that the particular way Paul conjugated the verb in 1 Cor 15 is MOST COMMONLY used for visions, revelations, and dreams in the Septuagint which Paul surely would have known like the back of his hand? Your interpretation is plausible. Can you also admit my interpretation is plausible? I think my interpretation is MOST LIKELY and best fits the evidence.

quote:

---

One piece of advice, the least intelligent people always insist they are right, they rob themselves of room to grow and learn.

---

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Imagine what you could learn.