Bush Vs Jesus

[marksimons]

just been reading some interesting stuff about Jesus, early christianity, the origins of the church and some very interesting stuff about Saint Paul, which has done a great deal to explain how the original tenents of Jesus' religion have been bastardised by most major christian organisations...

for instance:

--

Jesus insists that believing he is God is a deception and his disciples throughout time should beware of its detrimental effects. There is no dark and sinister mood to Jesus' words, or to the writing of Mark. They are simple and straightforward.

Who do people say that I am? Though art the Christ! Who do you say that I am? Thou art the Christ. Tell this to no one! Why? Because it is not true in the sense in which the original statement translates, the Christ being God. Once more this student underlines the statement that the word, Christos, is not use in these verses, but rather, oti ego eimi, the I am, God. Only ignorance would refuse to accept what is in front of its eye.

In these verses Jesus states it plainly. What more proof do you need? It is for everyone to see into their hearts, and to accept Joshua bar Joseph in the mission and spirit in which God sent him to us. Let him live!

The warning in Mark 13:6, is repeated in Luke, using that writer's available text, and whatever he might have had of oral tradition and the, Q manuscript.

"And he said, take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come saying, I Am; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them." (Luke 21:8 The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament)

It is also echoed in Matthew 24:5.

"For many will come saying, I am the Christ, and they will lead many astray? and many false prophets will arise and lead many astray." (Matthew 24: 5; Matthew 24:11 RSV)

Jesus himself breaks down the two statements as being separate issues. Many will come saying that he is Christ (I Am), and then, many false prophets will arise!

To our present generation, the warning is lethal. The claim that Jesus is God is being made by sect after sect of Christianity. It is no longer demanded solely by the Catholic Church. Jesus' warning, the sign of the end of the age is being fulfilled today. Great change is at hand.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/golgotha/golgotha2.php

--

Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy, who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you?re either with us or you?re with the terrorists,? Duffy wrote. "In one horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil, and it wasn?t hard to tell the difference.? Then Duffy added: ?Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/godb135.htm

--

If Jesus' word contradicted Paul's gospel and his Hellenistic theology he would have disregarded Jesus' words at once. If that spirit jeopardized Paul's standing and authority with his congregations he would have ignored it. But to act in direct conflict with those teachings would have taken an individual with such conceit, with such rigidity of mind and heart that it is almost impossible to imagine.

---

almost impossible to imagine...

Jesus: (Luke 6) Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful

Bush: In an interview with Talk magazine, Bush imitated (Karla Faye) Tucker's appeal for him to spare her life - pursing his lips, squinting his eyes, and in a squeaky voice saying, "Please don't kill me."

Jesus 1 - Bush 0

---

Matthew, Chapter 7, Jesus says "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them." We are cautioned not to pay attention merely to these people's words, but to look at their actions, and the "fruits" of their actions.

---

bush, preaching peace, waging war, false profit? possibly...

--

"Many shall come, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many."

And in fact, the word Christos does not even appear in the Greek text. Properly read, Jesus says: "Many shall come saying oti ego eimi." (I Am) (See: Mark 13:6, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament) In other words, the Godhead. Where the translation improperly uses the word, Christ, the verse is properly translated, I Am, the Godhead.

"For many shall come, saying, I am God, and shall deceive many."

To even consider the only other option, that Jesus denies that he is the Christ, would be an incredible stroke against the very doctrines of Christianity.

"And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come saying, I Am; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them." (Luke 21:8 RSV)

(Matthew 24:5)

We have always been led to understand that Jesus was speaking of others who would come as false Messiahs, but no one has suggested that Jesus was speaking of those who would come claiming that he was the, I Am, the Living God.

Jesus speaks to the disciples when they approach him about the future and coming events. Jesus answers them in simple terms, "Many shall come saying?" Christian laymen and women, disciples of teachers, ministers, pastors and evangelists, saying that the Christ is the, I Am; that he, Jesus, the anointed one of God, is God.

Well, many have been deceived, and as Jesus foretold, "?they will fool the very elect, if that be possible." Not only ignorance, but also arrogance is proving to be man's downfall, for if this simple statement is correctly stated, the time of the coming, is now! The kingdom is at hand.

If therefore they shall say unto you, 'Behold, he is in the wilderness; go not forth. Behold, he is in the inner chambers; believe it not.'" (Matthew 24:26-27)

If these people were saying that they were the Christ, why would they say he is here, or he is there? No, Jesus was speaking of himself and of those who would come later attempting to deify him. Jesus would have no part of it, why should we?

---

good points well put...

---

As with the early church, our response to an empire holding "absolute sway," against which "no one would dare to go to war," is the ancient confession of "Jesus is Lord." And to live in the promise that empires do not last, that the Word of God will ultimately survive the Pax Americana as it did the Pax Romana.

In the meantime, American Christians will have to make some difficult choices. Will we stand in solidarity with the worldwide church, the international body of Christ?or with our own American government? It's not a surprise to note that the global church does not generally support the foreign policy goals of the Bush administration?whether in Iraq, the Middle East, or the wider "war on terrorism." Only from inside some of our U.S. churches does one find religious voices consonant with the visions of American empire.

Once there was Rome; now there is a new Rome. Once there were barbarians; now there are many barbarians who are the Saddams of this world. And then there were the Christians who were loyal not to Rome, but to the kingdom of God. To whom will the Christians be loyal today?

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

---

so if america is an empire, as this man agrees it is:

William Kristol, editor of the influential Weekly Standard, admits the aspiration to empire. "If people want to say we're an imperial power, fine," Kristol wrote. Kristol is chair of the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative political figures that began in 1997 to chart a much more aggressive American foreign policy (see Project for a New American Empire). The Project's papers lay out the vision of an "American peace" based on "unquestioned U.S. military pre-eminence." These imperial visionaries write, "America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It is imperative, in their view, for the United States to "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." That, indeed, is empire.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

---

so is bush a false profit at the head of the new roman empire?

in my book yeah.

this may be a bit inchoherent, but I would really really reccomend reading a the links I posted - especially the Pauline Conspiracy, shows how modern christianity was founded on a false doctrine, that was definetly not jesus'.

--

The sacrament of Communion is from Paul.

Paul would have us believe that he received the custom from the Lord. It is agreed that he had not been present at the Last Supper. Professional theologians insist that if we take Paul's words literally, we would have to believe with that Paul received his instructions in a vision from the risen Lord. For a more pointed statement one must read the following notations from professional theologians.

"...and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (I Corinthians 11:25; RSV)

Mark's Gospel has no way to verbalize this is my body, but he does have the invitation to eat. That is lacking in Paul, and in its place there stands an order to repeat the act in remembrance of Christ. Professional interpreter's and theologians tell us that no Gospel contains this; the text of Luke (22:19b-20) is believed to be a later insertion based on I Corinthians. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 137)

The body of Christ, the body of believers, God incarnate, the pre-existence of Jesus, that Jesus is human yet divine, that his spilled blood is the means of our salvation, all of this is from Paul. To admit to this fraud at such a late date would be disastrous. So in order to defend its indefensible position, the ministry, the priesthood, does not teach those portions of Paul's letters that we have critiqued. Their inept response is that if Paul wrote a letter addressed as an apostle, then he was an apostle.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/pauline_conspiracy13.php

--

If bush says he was chosen by god, then he was chosen by god...

or not...

[howardstone]

[djxeno]

Originally posted by howardstone

what a brilliant, intelligent response...

[howardstone]

Originally posted by djxeno

what a brilliant, intelligent response...

Why thanks, lets be friends.

[djxeno]

Originally posted by howardstone

Why thanks, lets be friends.

funny you have nothing to say about the article

[jamiroguy1]

I didn't read it. Can someone paraphrase for me, please.

[howardstone]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I didn't read it. Can someone paraphrase for me, please.

yes please, cliff notes:aright:

[marksimons]

oh for fuck's sake!

these are the notes

seriously, some of the original articles were about 30 pages long, I got the best bits.

basically.

modern christian church isn't the one jesus wanted.

he did not want to be the son of god and worshiped as such.

communion was invented by saint paul, as were the words 'do this in memory of me'

saint paul called himself an apostle, when he wasn't, he never met jesus, and had major disagreements with the desciples, which is why he invented the comunion as the 'body' and 'blood' of christ, which are essentially pagan rituals.

paul had the infastructure and organisational skills to scare people into line, and punish those who stepped out of line with his 'gospel'.

thus setting the tone for most of the next 2000 years of christianity.

and there's some stuff in there about Bush being exactly the kind of false profit the man Jesus warned us about...

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by marksimons

oh for fuck's sake!

these are the notes

seriously, some of the original articles were about 30 pages long, I got the best bits.

basically.

modern christian church isn't the one jesus wanted.

he did not want to be the son of god and worshiped as such.

communion was invented by saint paul, as were the words 'do this in memory of me'

saint paul called himself an apostle, when he wasn't, he never met jesus, and had major disagreements with the desciples, which is why he invented the comunion as the 'body' and 'blood' of christ, which are essentially pagan rituals.

paul had the infastructure and organisational skills to scare people into line, and punish those who stepped out of line with his 'gospel'.

thus setting the tone for most of the next 2000 years of christianity.

and there's some stuff in there about Bush being exactly the kind of false profit the man Jesus warned us about...

you didnt get the "best bits" you got what you wanted us to hear douche bag!

[marksimons]

yeah, but an awful lot of the articles were quotes and quotes from the bible, and other places with a lot of discussion and other stuff, this is the crux of the matter.

I figure it's quite an interesting thing, if you want, read the rest of the articles, the pauline thing is a fascinating one...