Here's a summary for a little hypothesis I have invented and been pondering on for a while.

Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?

I won't spend a lot of time giving references in the hope that the people here know the background information.
I'm sorry if you don't, but I'm too tired to dig through books right now.

So, consider the things we think Jesus Christ said (irrelevant if that was his name, or one person), he spoke of love and unity, and the kingdom of god here on Earth, a kingdom that is available to anyone, if (s)he opens the heart to the great mystery (God) and sees.
He spoke of the unity of all things and the manifestation of the realization of that unity is love, and that everyone who achieves that realization becomes just like he was - one with the father, God.
Almost Buddhist-like, yes? But that's another story altogether. :)

Now the god of the Jews - Jahve.
First see - the god of Jews, not the god of the world, only Jews were his chosen people and the only promised land was the land of the sandy Jerusalem and the territories around. He also proclaimed to be the only god and had a lot of other characteristics that by christian and nowadays standarts were not very pleasant, not a god of love at all.

So here comes Jesus and teaches about the universal God that is everything among people that generally were Jews and who also had only one god, but that god was tribal. So I think it is not a far too leap to assume that the Jews mistook Jesus god for Jahve, because they knew that there was only one god, and the others were devils, and if Jesus was talking about a God, then he was referring to Jahve

The people who didn't make that association were prosecuted and gradually disappeared, they were called the gnostics.

So here's what I think happened - the Jews together with Roman government assimilated christianity and transformed it into Catholicism, a new faith, a combination of the old judaism and the new christianity.
The real christianity disappeared with the gnostics, and the main reason for it was that a god of love is not a very good god to organise state and people around, and not a very good support mechanism of the priestly caste.

This is all in very few words, I hope you get the general idea and can fill in the blank pieces (with your knowledge) which I leaped across to save time and my fingers, because this is enough starting material for a Masters degree paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expounding_of_the_Law

Please no links to long articles. Save my eyes and speak your mind, just as I honoured your time and didn't post an article of 20 pages.

I have thought for YEARS that the God of Christ and the God of Abraham were not one and the same.
In fact, I started a book based on that very concept about 5 years ago (yes it is slow going).
To be honest, I am not so sure about this...
So here's what I think happened - the Jews together with Roman government assimilated christianity and transformed it into Catholicism, a new faith, a combination of the old judaism and the new christianity.
The real christianity disappeared with the gnostics, and the main reason for it was that a god of love is not a very good god to organise state and people around, and not a very good support mechanism of the priestly caste.
However, I think there is ample evidence to support the idea that Jesus was not talking about Abraham's God at all, rather trying to convert people away from Abraham's God.
I rarely bring it up because I can't support it as well as I'd like to right now.

I wish I had more time to delve into the distinct differences between what Jesus taught and what the early Jews saw as God(s), but I think reading the New Testament in proper context and taking the Coveneants into close consideration, one could easily support that argument.

I am late for beinging my sister to the doctor right now, and have to go, but I hope to come back to this very soon.

Jesus started out as jew , and interpreted the jewish YAHWEH in his own way as his god ......
It is only Paulus that changed this into christianity , and opened up for
non-jews to join to the movement ..... Paulus had a lengthy discussion with Jesus brother James about it , and at last James gave in .......

So yes , the christian god started as Yahweh ......

Sorry, I was just trying to point out the source of what is apparently the standard interpretation, which is mentioned in the very first paragraph of the article I linked to:

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

16 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

My personal view is that Jesus (as described in the bible) saw himself not as serving a different God but as clarifying His message.

But I also think the idea of God has changed over time, and modern Christians have different ideas to the Hebrews of Moses' time (as described in the bible). Modern Jews probably do too. Despite all the mention of death sentences and stoning in the old testament, I believe there's a quote in the Talmud warning that a court who executes more than one person in seven years is overly bloodthirsty.

Jesus started out as jew , and interpreted the jewish YAHWEH in his own way as his god ......
Interpretation can not go further than the linguistic meaning of the words. If you pass that line, you're into creation of something new.

A question: taking in mind the old testament only, can you interpret the god depicted in it as the god of love and unity?

I can't, it's too contradictory, therefore I think that right from the start it couldn't be the popular idea of Jahve, as he is described in the old testament.

Interpretation can not go further than the linguistic meaning of the words. If you pass that line, you're into creation of something new.

A question: taking in mind the old testament only, can you interpret the god depicted in it as the god of love and unity?

I can't, it's too contradictory, therefore I think that right from the start it couldn't be the popular idea of Jahve, as he is described in the old testament.

Funny , I have never seen the christian god as all-good ,loving and so on ....
I see him as a complex character shaped by the people who invented him ......sometimes revengefull ..... almost evil .....especially in the old testament ( which is accepted by christians as a part of the bible I think )...........

Interpretation can not go further than the linguistic meaning of the words. If you pass that line, you're into creation of something new.

A question: taking in mind the old testament only, can you interpret the god depicted in it as the god of love and unity?

I can't, it's too contradictory, therefore I think that right from the start it couldn't be the popular idea of Jahve, as he is described in the old testament.

Funny , I have never seen the christian god as all-good ,loving and so on ....
I see him as a complex character shaped by the people who invented him ......sometimes revengefull ..... almost evil .....especially in the old testament ( which is accepted by christians as a part of the bible I think )...........

I think I mentioned it once in the religions forum ....god is not omnibenevolent .... that is a phrase invented by atheists ...

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent

Exactly. My point is that nowaday christians are not christians at all, but catholics and everything that has sprung out of catholicism.
Christianity is not compatible with the god of the old testament.

Exactly. My point is that nowaday christians are not christians at all, but catholics and everything that has sprung out of catholicism.
Christianity is not compatible with the god of the old testament.


I think you should moderate it to :
The concept of god in catholic christianity today is not totally compatible with the concept of god in the old testament ...........

There are many christian sects today ....some even very old .....as the coptic church .......from which the ethiopian church has sprung , and they claim connections with the jewish god .....

All very tricky .......

By christianity I understand that which may have been said by Jesus and that which has been said similar to it, nothing else.
There is no christianity today, because it's all infused with judaism.
Gnostic writings are more in tune with the things Jesus said.

I'll leave it at that, just my position. :)

Don't forget us Protestants, we disapprove of much of what the RC's teach too.

And don't forget that thousands of Jews in Jerusalem accepted Christ in the first century.

Christianity is not compatible with the god of the old testament.

modern day christianity, sure.
im not sure how familiar you are with more archaic, non-catholic christianity....
there have been several groups throughout the last thousand years that have embraced the same values as judaism, while believing in the divinity of jesus christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menonite

these are but a few.

however, i do agree with the core of what you are saying here.

I would guess that one of the events with greatest impact on Christianity/Catholicism was becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire: it spread it widely, but as always happens when a large number of people sign nominally up to a religion, diluted its fervour.

It also forged a Church-State bond which took centuries to break.

Regarding Protestantism, I think that depends on the reformer. From what I've read, Anglicanism seems to have been created through selfish motives (the King wanted a national religion controlled by him, not a foreign one controlled by the Pope).

I think Luther's motives for reform were more in line with Jesus' teachings.

I'm a Christian so stop reading now if that offends you.

Asking if the God of the Jews and the Christian God are the same is NOT the same as asking if the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same.

NO: Christians and Jews DO NOT worship the same God. Christians recognize the Divinity of Christ, Jews do not. This is more than mere semantics, this is a critical point.

YES:The Old Testament God (Yahweh) and the New Testament God are the same God.

The Bible is one contiguous unit, the inspired Word of the Living God.

I'm a Christian so stop reading now if that offends you.
That should not be a reason to write improperly.

YES:The Old Testament God (Yahweh) and the New Testament God are the same God.
On what do you base your assumption? Please provide some arguments counter to those already mentioned here.

The Bible is one contiguous unit, the inspired Word of the Living God.
Preaching is forbidden in this forum.

most importantly, we have been derailed a bit here.

the god of jesus was most certainly the same diety worshipped by jews at his time...otherwise, i dont see the point of his outrage at the temple vendors.
:)

this would be like pat robertson (american televangelist) disrupting a pagan ceremony "because they were doing it all wrong". as funny as it sounds, it is highly unlikely.

Good point! I'll think about it.

That should not be a reason to write improperly.


On what do you base your assumption? Please provide some arguments counter to those already mentioned here.


Preaching is forbidden in this forum.

The Bible contains a continuous narrative thread from start to finish. From the Adamic Covenant to the Abrahmic Covenant to the New Covenant.

As for the differences between Jews and Christians; Jews DO NOT accept the divinity of Christ, whereas it's the central concept of CHRISTianity. Christians believe that God the Father (Old Testament) and God the Messiah/Redeemer (New Testament) are the same God, two parts of the Trinity (with the Holy Spirit being the third), but all are the same God. Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor do they believe in the Trinity.

I hope this explains in some small part why Christians and Jews do not worship the same God.

That's all fine and sweet, but the question is about the god Jesus referred to.

If he saw himself one with the jewish Jahve, it doesn't bode well together with what he preached. There is a difference what the old testament spoke of Jahve and what Jesus spoke of God. His philosophy of what the god is contradicts with the depiction of god in the old testament.


YES:The Old Testament God (Yahweh) and the New Testament God are the same God.

supersoldier71,

I think that was and is well understood.(though not all Christians are Trinitarians)

The question, however, as I took it (and as I see it) is regarding not what Christians interpret, or what the Church's position is, but what Christ was actually preaching.

The question is whether what he preached was genuinely consistent with the God in the Old Testament, or he was preaching a complete departure from the Old Testament and trying to convert Jews to another "Father" altogether.

I am too busy at work lately to research supporting chapter and verse (The Devil Inside, I have a good one or two for your last comment) but this is a valid, supportable position.
(it figures that as soon as I get this forum, I get very busy at work)

Hopefully this week...

That would be great, one_raven,
christianity and judaism isn't my prime field of interest.

That would be great, one_raven,
christianity and judaism isn't my prime field of interest.

im on it. :)

Matthew 21:12 has jesus directly quoting the torah as his authority, for example:
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'

this is but one example of jesus' judaic intent.
the things he taught, in essence, are consistent with judaism.

however, i believe he was actually trying to revolutionize the religion (which he certainly did).

What are your thoughts on the Thomas Gospel, the one which was dug up among the dead sea scrolls?

From the type of a seemingly good and precise first person account it could be written in the time of Jesus or shortly after, but it could also be written 200 years later by a clever gnostic scribe/s.

Personally my hunch is that much of that may really have been what Jesus really said.

At any case I find the Gospel of Thomas fascinating. And take in mind that it's an original text that has avoided censorship and biased and unbiased translations for almost 2000 years, not like the other gospels.

What are your thoughts on the Thomas Gospel, the one which was dug up among the dead sea scrolls?

From the type of a seemingly good and precise first person account it could be written in the time of Jesus or shortly after, but it could also be written 200 years later by a clever gnostic scribe/s.

Personally my hunch is that much of that may really have been what Jesus really said.

At any case I find the Gospel of Thomas fascinating. And take in mind that it's an original text that has avoided censorship and biased and unbiased translations for almost 2000 years, not like the other gospels.
well to be honest, my opinion (and thats all it is at this point) is that it is most likely an extrapolation of real life events. it seems to me to be a classical jewish tale, in the sense that jesus has a power that nobody understands, and misuses it.

this can be taken as an allegory for hebrew teachings at the time.
for example, men who wished to be rabbis werent permitted to begin their study before the age of forty. this is because jews believe that the torah is more than a "book", they see it as a sort of "owner's manual to the universe".
jewish teachings tell that anyone who understands the torah even nearly intimately would be capable of the feats that are attributed to jesus.


jesus having "the power" at an early age and misusing it, says to me: "This was written by a jew of jesus' time." jewish stories are full of such lessons of the misuse of power with no oversight.

*shrug*
again, its just my opinion. :)

It has no structure of a tale, it's more like a notebook where some phrases have been written down at different times.
And I don't remember there anything said about a misuse of knowledge.

It has no structure of a tale, it's more like a notebook where some phrases have been written down.
And I don't remember there anything said about a misuse of knowledge.

just because it reminds me of a tale doesnt mean that it is one. :)

the thomas gospel is the writing where jesus kills the boy, yes?
in jewish thought, this would be jesus misusing his power (knowledge), as he is a child still, and jewish education doesnt begin until you enter manhood. :)

its very indicative of jewish writing of the time, actually.

ill explain:
jews think of the torah as a woman. those who try to understand what is written for only the words is akin to judging the entirety of a woman's personality by her clothing....which is what jews think the torah is: the clothing for the earthly presence of g-d. :)

it was in this context that i wrote the above comment.
hope that clears up what i was intending to put forth.

the thomas gospel is the writing where jesus kills the boy, yes?
ummm, where?
Kills a boy? Humm, you mean this?
(65) He said: A good man had a vineyard. He gave it to husbandmen that they might work it, and he receive its fruit their hand. He sent his servant, that the husbandmen might give him the fruit of the vineyard. They seized his servant, they beat him, and all but killed him. The servant came (and) told his master. His master said: Perhaps they did not know him. He sent another servant; the husbandmen beat the other also. Then the master sent his son. He said: Perhaps they will reverence my son. Those husbandmen, since they knew that he was the heir the vineyard, they seized him (and) killed him. He that hath ears, let him hear.
(The following is a fresh translation, made from the Coptic text published by Messrs. Brill of Leiden. In the preparation of this versi the following six translations have been consulted, in addition to to published by Messrs. Brill: English by W. R. Schoedel, French by Doresse and R. Kasser, German by J. LeipoIdt and Hans Quecke Danish by S. Giversen. The numbering of the sayings is that of the Brill edition.)

The good man is god.
The garden is the Earth.
The boy and heir to the garden is a child of the god.
The husbandmen are people not honouring (etc) the god.

I don't get your point, sorry.

http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html
that is what i was referring to....
do you have another text that im not aware of?
that would be awesome! the evolution of abrahamic faith is one of my favorite subjects!

I am using this translation: http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html
but I have read two others.
Please see this page: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

edit: Yup, you are referring to another text, not what I originally referred to.

"The good man is God," an obvious contradiction of the Gospels.

interesting....good links!

"The good man is God," an obvious contradiction of the Gospels.

however, this isnt a discussion of "christian dogma" per se....if i understand avatar well enough, i think the point is to understand jesus from as many perspectives as possible before rendering judgement on the thread's subject.

however, this isnt a discussion of "christian dogma" per se....if i understand avatar well enough, i think the point is to understand jesus from as many perspectives as possible before rendering judgement on the thread's subject.
Indeed, you do. For I am interested of the christianity in the time when it was free from the dogmatic control and interpretation of the church.
Because for some time now I have a growing suspicion based on textual and other evidence that christianity (as we populary think of it today) was not really the philosophy/religion of Jesus,
but it is more what clergy and polititians wanted it to be around 300 CE and afterwards.

Indeed, you do. For I am interested of the christianity in the time when it was free from the dogmatic control and interpretation of the church.
Because for some time now I have a growing suspicion based on textual and other evidence that christianity was not really the philosophy/religion of Jesus,
but it is more what clergy and polititians wanted it to be around 300 CE and afterwards.

gnostics, essenes, and the like are an excellent place to start looking for "unorthodox" opinions of jesus.

also, dont neglect the muslim opinion of jesus. :)

So supposedly why did the church fathers not include that which they did not include?

Because the parts they excluded talked about the individual persuit of spiritual transformation, not simply inheriting the doctrines of apostolic succession. This would have robbed the bishops of political power. Same with the tradition of only speaking latin in church services.

Because the parts they excluded talked about the individual persuit of spiritual transformation, not simply inheriting the doctrines of apostolic succession. This would have robbed the bishops of political power. Same with the tradition of only speaking latin in church services.

beat me to it.

to be fair, we cant discount the traditional modern view of jesus' history either, though.

The New Testament says nothing about "apostolic succession."

I have read some gnostic texts, nothing of the muslim opinion though, good idea, thanks! When I have more free time anyway.

Abrahamic religions seem cold, distant and desert sandy to me, they more can teach me how we got here, but I wouldn't like them to be the teachers how we should move on. Therefore I'm a bit curious, but not really excited about them.

I'm more interested in general shamanism to tibetan tantrism to general buddhism and upanishadic hinduism, with a weekend vacation in the European heroic tradition and mythology with an emphasis in all of them to the techniques f rituals.

I have this long term plan on making short films that can reach deeply, you see,
and what a better way to find how to do it than studying rituals that have been used for that purpose since time forgotten.

Please tell me, what you think of the text I linked previously, i.e. The Gospel of Thomas which I was referring to, since we established that we had been talking about two different texts. :) It happens.

http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html

I'm a Christian so stop reading now if that offends you.

Asking if the God of the Jews and the Christian God are the same is NOT the same as asking if the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same.

Who asked about the Old testament and the new testament God at all?

NO: Christians and Jews DO NOT worship the same God. Christians recognize the Divinity of Christ, Jews do not. This is more than mere semantics, this is a critical point.


Recognizing Christ's divinity doesn't mean that they don't worship the same God. I know a few religions that don't acknowledge Christ's divinity but worship "the same God".

YES:The Old Testament God (Yahweh) and the New Testament God are the same God.

The Bible is one contiguous unit, the inspired Word of the Living God.

It has some neat stories in it I'll give you that.

Same with the tradition of only speaking latin in church services.

Which also goes along with the fact that for a good long while it was against the law to read anything but the Bible, the Bible was only available in Latin, and only the clergy (and a few highly educated aristocrats) could read Latin.

Who asked about the Old testament and the new testament God at all?




its kind of the point of the thread, man....
the contrasts and similarities are what we are discussing.

my Dad is a christian, has a good deal of faith (though he dislikes the church, he nearly ended up a professor of theology @ Notre Dame before my sister was born), and has the following opinion on the matter:

When you have a child, you first have to teach them the basics. What to do, what not to do; as the parent, you have to draw a line of what is not acceptable, and keep to that line. There are times when you have to be harsh, in cases where safety is concerned. "You *will* be punished if you sneak out and go drinking with your friends at age 12", for instance.

As the kid starts getting older, the pure basics start giving way to questions with less obvious areas of right and wrong - pushniment is less effective, and loving education becomes a more usefull tool for guiding the child through the maze of choices available to them. Telling them where is line is is less important than explaining why the line is there.

Once your child is older, then you step back, and allow them to learn for themselves. You have provided the basic foundation for them to live on thier own, and learn from their own mistakes.


I don't think this is absolutly accurate, but it is a nice way of looking at things (from a perspective of faith, of course).

When posting to a thread relating to religion, I think the poster should give some background so others can judge what his bias might be. I happen to be an atheist who was raised to be a Christian and who also took some comparative religion courses. One of my parents was Catholic. The other was a Quaker (a small protestant sect).

My interpretation of Jesus is that he was attempting to reform Judaism rather than start a new religion. This is based on what I remember of his actions and what he actually said in various sermons and parables, discounting some of the less believable parts of the four gospels. I always thought of him as being like Martin Luther who initially tried to get the Catholic leaders to stop various practices like the selling of indulgences, never intending to start a new religion..

I believe that when the gospels were actually written, they were heavily influenced by Paul and others. I try to filter out what I consider words attributed to Jesus, but actually originating with Paul and others after his death and alleged resurrection.

In particular, his attitude toward the money changers and priests of the Temple seem like an attempt to reform, not destroy Judaism. Note that there were various scams supported by the priest other than those perpetrated by the money changers.

When posting to a thread relating to religion, I think the poster should give some background so others can judge what his bias might be. I happen to be an atheist who was raised to be a Christian and who also took some comparative religion courses. One of my parents was Catholic. The other was a Quaker (a small protestant sect).

My interpretation of Jesus is that he was attempting to reform Judaism rather than start a new religion. This is based on what I remember of his actions and what he actually said in various sermons and parables, discounting some of the less believable parts of the four gospels. I always thought of him as being like Martin Luther who initially tried to get the Catholic leaders to stop various practices like the selling of indulgences, never intending to start a new religion..

I believe that when the gospels were actually written, they were heavily influenced by Paul and others. I try to filter out what I consider words attributed to Jesus, but actually originating with Paul and others after his death and alleged resurrection.

In particular, his attitude toward the money changers and priests of the Temple seem like an attempt to reform, not destroy Judaism. Note that there were various scams supported by the priest other than those perpetrated by the money changers.

exactly.

I am always amused by people who say "there is only one God" and then point at someone and say "He does not pray to the same God that I pray to".

try reading the "gods of eden"

considering jesus was jewish i'm going to go with yes

He was very Jewish indeed, preached in the synagogue at age 12.

try reading the "gods of eden"

sitchin could add an interesting dimension to this conversation.
why dont you kick it off?

Here's a summary for a little hypothesis I have invented and been pondering on for a while.

Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?
.

In her book "The Gnostic Gospels" Elaine Pagels comes to the same conclusion, based on the gnostic writings. i.e. that there are two different gods talked of.

In fact she goes as far to say that the god of the old testament is a demigod written of as the Demiurge in gnostic writing.

Avatar Said “ Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?”

That depends from what perspective one discusses the subject. There are two basic perspectives when it comes to Christianity: You are either a 1.) “born again” Christian, also called a “babe in Christ,” 1 Corinthians 3:1, who is one that thinks “born again” means only accepting Jesus Christ, or instead one is a 2.) mature Christian, 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, who includes in the definition of “born again” reincarnation. Other differences are noted next, which is only a quick explanation on the many ideas that keep the babe, and mature Christian apart. The following ideas answer Avatar's question.

If one is a 1.) then the God of Christ is not the God of the Jews. Jews believe God is invisible, but 1.) believe God became visible, and appeared as Jesus. They think Jesus is an image of God, but God includes all flora, and fauna, also mountains, seas, solar systems, galaxies, and so on, and anyone with an IQ greater than 90 knows that one lone man can not be that grand, and limitless image. Just as important as that is that an image of anything is never invisible, for by definition an image must be visible to see it. So for 1.) Jesus fails to be invisible, like the Jews say God is invisible, and Jesus fails miserably to be an image of God. The apostle Paul calls those of 1.) “FOOLS,” who are found at Romans 1:20.

Those who are of 2.) believe like the Jews, that God is invisible, and invisible God remains. What mature Christians, and Jews believe are much the same, and a simple idea on that is found here: Romans 1:20” For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse“

Correction: I meant Romans 1:22 for FOOLS because they made the invisible to become an image of man.

I can only hope that Jesus was talking about somegod other than Jehovah. I rather like the teachings of Jesus, but Jehovah was/is bloodthirsty. (Yo, Abraham/Avraham, do me a favor, Kill your boy. Psych!)
Judaism is a tribal religion; Jehovah is their god.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" must refer to other gods.
There is a book "The History of God" can't remember who wrote it, (I'll go and research it)that gives interesting ideas on this.
Also, remember, the word "catholic' meant "all inclusive"

Ps, I'm not a christian of any sort. I'm a Wiccan/Pantheist. Pantheism='All-God-ism' as in take everything, put it all together and THAT's God.

So, consider the things we think Jesus Christ said (irrelevant if that was his name, or one person), he spoke of love and unity, and the kingdom of god here on Earth, a kingdom that is available to anyone, if (s)he opens the heart to the great mystery (God) and sees.
He spoke of the unity of all things and the manifestation of the realization of that unity is love, and that everyone who achieves that realization becomes just like he was - one with the father, God.
Almost Buddhist-like, yes? But that's another story altogether. :)

It's more Krishna-like than Buddha-like in nearly all aspects...


Now the god of the Jews - Jahve.
First see - the god of Jews, not the god of the world, only Jews were his chosen people and the only promised land was the land of the sandy Jerusalem and the territories around. He also proclaimed to be the only god and had a lot of other characteristics that by christian and nowadays standarts were not very pleasant, not a god of love at all.

So here comes Jesus and teaches about the universal God that is everything among people that generally were Jews and who also had only one god, but that god was tribal. So I think it is not a far too leap to assume that the Jews mistook Jesus god for Jahve, because they knew that there was only one god, and the others were devils, and if Jesus was talking about a God, then he was referring to Jahve

The people who didn't make that association were prosecuted and gradually disappeared, they were called the gnostics.

So here's what I think happened - the Jews together with Roman government assimilated christianity and transformed it into Catholicism, a new faith, a combination of the old judaism and the new christianity.
The real christianity disappeared with the gnostics, and the main reason for it was that a god of love is not a very good god to organise state and people around, and not a very good support mechanism of the priestly caste.

This is all in very few words, I hope you get the general idea and can fill in the blank pieces (with your knowledge) which I leaped across to save time and my fingers, because this is enough starting material for a Masters degree paper.
The God of Jews = The God of Islam...the same evil God of Jahve who hates images, is vengeful, war-like, jealous, etc...

Also Judaism and Islam are almost identical religions with few differences....it's almost as if the Jews and Muslims worship Siva and the Christians worship Visnu

Please elaborate on Siva.
Thanks.

Please elaborate on Siva.
Thanks.

Well it's not really that much like Siva...Siva is considered benevolent, and war-like also...but it's not really that much like Siva...Siva is a lot more benevolent than the OT God and Allah...

Well it's not really that much like Siva...Siva is considered benevolent, and war-like also...but it's not really that much like Siva...Siva is a lot more benevolent than the OT God and Allah...

Thanks, that makes it so much clearer.:rolleyes:

Without reading the posts above..

I always thought the 'Christians' split from the Jews because they believed Jesus had come to earth while the Jews believed (and still do) that Jesus still hasnt arrived. This would mean that the God of both religions is one and the same. I never knew otherwise.

Well, maybe you should read the posts above.

Well, maybe you should read the posts above.

Hmm. Taking all other posts into account i conclude that my original view is the correct one in my opinion.
I think noone is going to prove either way any time soon, so opinions is all we have.

Yes, but now your original view is right for the right reasons. ;)

Heh yeah :)
I had a Christian upbringing untill the age of about 10 and have been to Christian schools all my life. So i know a little something about the bible, not too much anymore though.
Strangely i never believed despite my upbringing, not even as a little kid. I always found that the bible was full of contradictions and stories that obviously couldnt be true. Even though i later learned i wasnt supposed to take a lot of the stories literally the 'damage' was already done.
In fact, as a kid, i always compared the bible with a book of fairytales. Much to the dismay of my parents ofcourse :D

This is my alternative history of Abrahamic religion.
Akhenaton in Egypt made Sun to be the only God.
Akhenaton = Moses, this is the connection that I´m not sure yet. Now we have come to monotheist religion where Sun transformed to personification of God = Jahve, this did happen during religion shifted from using symbols to using letters, and then comes the bible. Bible is astrological opus. It was the shifting from Rams-house to house of pisces which developed the new messiah, Jesus, was the prophet when entering in the new era of astrolical age, the era of piscies. In times of Ram it was Joseph, similarities between the two are striking.Thats why early Christians used pisces as their symbol and Jews still blow the horn of ram in some of their rituals. If Jesus was a real person and not just manifestion of the sun, we know awful little about him, there is hardly any references to him in that time in history texts.
But if we focus what he had supposedly said it would appear that he was heavily influenced by eastern religions. Did he share the same God as Jews, I think he did, I think hes motive was clean up the house and bring the set of new rules to age of piscies. Then he was sold out by those whom wanted to keep the old ways and the Romans did the dirty job. Later Rome hijacked and corrupted Christianity to the point how it is now establishing it self, utterly rich and filthy, just read the history of the popes, some of them where sinful to the point being Lucifers themselves.
All this highly speculative and should be taken as such, but still, what is history but speculation.
I have come to this conclusion gathering millions of bits information from hundreds of books, but yes, I know, its kinda far out :)

Yes, but now your original view is right for the right reasons. ;)

I'm not convinced. The bible was written by 'men' trying to convince the masses of their position.
The god to which Jesus refers behaves a lot differently than Jehovah.

Akhenaton = Moses
Can't be. Akhenaton died in Egypt, was mummified and entombed.

And if you propose that Moses was a scribe in Akhenatons court (has been proposed by quite a few),
it also can't really hold ground (imo), because there is one fundamental difference between Akhenatons monotheism and that of Moses and Jews.

Akhenatons monotheism proclaims that all the gods of other tribes and other people are aspects of Aton, all gods are localisations of the solar disc. Aton appears as god so and so there, and Aton appears as god so and so there.

While the Jahvist monotheism proclaims that there is no other god in the world.
That all the other gods are demons, devils.

That is one fundamental difference that imo couldn't have arisen so quickly from Aton cult.

And besides we have written evidence (Amarna letters) that during Akhenatons reign there were invasions of the "jewical semites" (Habiru) in the territory of Egypt. During Akhenatons reign Egypt was fighting their invasions on the borders, they weren't enslaved or anything. That happened later.

So I think your speculation is not likely to be true.

I'm not convinced. The bible was written by 'men' trying to convince the masses of their position.
The god to which Jesus refers behaves a lot differently than Jehovah.

Yes, I agree, catholicism is not christianity, it's a made up version of it some 300 years after the death of Jesus by destroying and not including many texts in the bible,
however here the argument is whether Jesus was referring to the old god of Jews - the argument is towards the past beliefs, not the future.

So is it your position that the Jew's god of conquest and retribution the same as Jesus' god of love and acceptance???

Also, what about the references in the 'older testament' to other 'gods'

No, you didn't read my first post. Of course you didn't.

But during the discussion, presented with supported arguments and through evaluating them I'm now swayed more towards the other opinion.

At any case you totally misunderstood my text you quoted. I was pointing out that only through evaluating all arguments one is capable of doing a more or less valid conclusion.

Yes, I agree, catholicism is not christianity, it's a made up version of it some 300 years after the death of Jesus by destroying and not including many texts in the bible,
however here the argument is whether Jesus was referring to the old god of Jews - the argument is towards the past beliefs, not the future.

Yet you use the bible to support your position.
While I'm not catholic, to say they are not christians is the hight of protestant arrogance.

The word "catholic" means all inclusive.

No, you didn't read my first post. Of course you didn't.

But during the discussion, presented with supported arguments and through evaluating them I'm now swayed more towards the other opinion.

Yes I did. I didn't ask you what your original position was; I asked what your current position is.

Oh, in that case, I'm in doubts and don't have a clear position.

Yet you use the bible to support your position.
While I'm not catholic, to say they are not christians is the hight of protestant arrogance.

The word "catholic" means all inclusive.

Bible in it has many texts, many sources. It's a compilation.

Catholics and all other derivatives (like protestamts, 7th day adventists, etc) are not christians because they do not follow also the teachings of Jesus as they are written in the texts not inculded in the bible in the 4th century.
So there hasn't been a true christian organisation since that time.

Can't be. Akhenaton died in Egypt, was mummified and entombed.

And if you propose that Moses was a scribe in Akhenatons court (has been proposed by quite a few),
it also can't really hold ground (imo), because there is one fundamental difference between Akhenatons monotheism and that of Moses and Jews.

Akhenatons monotheism proclaims that all the gods of other tribes and other people are aspects of Aton, all gods are localisations of the solar disc. Aton appears as god so and so there, and Aton appears as god so and so there.

While the Jahvist monotheism proclaims that there is no other god in the world.
That all the other gods are demons, devils.

That is one fundamental difference that imo couldn't have arisen so quickly from Aton cult.

And besides we have written evidence (Amarna letters) that during Akhenatons reign there were invasions of the "jewical semites" (Habiru) in the territory of Egypt. During Akhenatons reign Egypt was fighting their invasions on the borders, they weren't enslaved or anything. That happened later.

So I think your speculation is not likely to be true.

-Thanks for elaborating, I´m not sure that Moses even existed in flesh in that sense that bible presents him, (but if he did, he was Akhenaton ;) )
he was referred to be the lawgiver, just like Akhenaton did bring the new set of laws, and Misis in Egypt before him, and many other figures starting with M in other religions. Whole bible is an allegro of many things.
Remember how in the end Akhenatons cult vanished and cities build for it slowly filled with sand, my guess is that the sun cult stayed alive and reforms itself in a new area with some wondering tribe.
The difference with Aton cult version of God and version of God from Bible
lies only in semantics, i.e. other Gods than Aton are Demons/false Gods, there
is only one God, in practice its the same thing, there is just One God and its happen to be ours, your God isnt God.

Interesting possibility at least :)

Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?

Christ is the God of the Jews--and of the Gentiles.

The difference with Aton cult version of God and version of God from Bible
lies only in semantics, i.e. other Gods than Aton are Demons/false Gods, there
is only one God, in practice its the same thing, there is just One God and its happen to be ours, your God isnt God.
Sorry, I don't agree. Let me show an example using a very "Moseic" image.
If, we hold to your argument, then when Moses came down from the mountain (irrelevant, if he really came, the dogma is that he did) and saw all those people worshipping the golden bull, if he were from the Aton cult, he would have seen that in reality they are worshipping Aton in the form of a bull, and would have jolly joined with them.

Besides why did Aton represent himself as a storm and thunder, not blinding light atop a mountain, which would have been a better symbol of Aton cult, because it had the Sun at its center?
Besides old jewish texts have too many references to demons to have come from an egyptian origin. Aton cult was more monotheistic than Judaism.

edit: I realise there are some (three to be exact) weak points there and am open to counterarguments. I'm making supper thus I'm too busy to counterargument myself. :D

p.s. What about my Amarna letters argument?

-Thanks for elaborating, I´m not sure that Moses even existed in flesh in that sense that bible presents him, (but if he did, he was Akhenaton )
he was referred to be the lawgiver, just like Akhenaton did bring the new set of laws, and Misis in Egypt before him, and many other figures starting with M in other religions. Whole bible is an allegro of many things.
Sigh... Akhenaton died as honest pharaohs do. There was a "burrial" ceremony.

If, for the sake of argument, we say that Moses was a scribe or someone other in A..atons court, then I don't see why that person couldn't have emulated him.

But, as I said, I don't think there is a relation between the two cults more than there is a relation between any two other cults of that region.

Destroying the bull was allegro of destroying the old habits i.e going to new age of Ram from age of Bull in astrological map. And the destroying of old habits could be in this case raising Aton to be the one God.
Thanks for taking this theory in a right way, looking forward to investigate this more,
but I´m in little hurry now.
p.s Gotta study more about those Amarna letters before commenting.

Oh, in that case, I'm in doubts and don't have a clear position.

:wtf:

of course, there is only one god

yaveh
christian god
allah

all the same person

I´m not alone with this theory it seems :)


Ahmed Osman

Historian, lecturer, researcher and author, Ahmed Osman is a British Egyptologist born in Cairo

His four in-depth books clarifying the history of the Bible and Egypt are: Stranger in the Valley of the Kings (1987) - Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt (1990) - The House of the Messiah (1992) - Out of Egypt (1998)

.................................................. ..

The Birth of Moses

Amenhotep, who was later known as Akhenaten and Moses, was born in Year 12 of his father Amenhotep III, 1394 BC, in the summer royal palace in the border city of Zarw in northern Sinai. Zarw, modern Kantara East, was the center of the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt, and in the same location where the biblical Moses was born. But contrary to the biblical account, Moses was born inside the royal palace. His mother Queen Tiye had an elder son, Tuthmosis, who died a short time before Amenhotep's birth. Tuthmosis had been educated and trained at the royal residence in Memphis before he mysteriously disappeared—believed to have been kidnapped and assassinated by the Amun priests. Fearing for his safety, Tiye sent her son, the infant Amenhotep, by water to the safekeeping of her father's Israelite family outside the walls of Zarw. (Which was the origin of the biblical baby-in-the-bulrushes story.)

................................

The root of the name Moses is in the Egyptian word Mos which means "child." But this word also had a wider legal meaning—"the rightful son and heir." As it was punishable by death to mention Akhenaten's name after his banishment, a code name was established through which his followers could refer to him. Therefore they called him MOs, the son, to indicate that he was the legitimate son of Amenhotep III and the rightful heir to his father's throne. The ancient Egyptian language had no written vowels, although the vowels were pronounced. The written word meaning a child or son consisted of two consonants, m and s, It is therefore easy to see that the Hebrew word, Moses, was derived from the Egyptian, Mos. The final 's' of Moses derives from the Greek translation of the biblical name.

...............................................

General Pa-Ramses ascended to the Egyptain throne as Ramses I, the first Pharoah of the 19th dynasty. Left with no choice but to flee from Egypt with his followers—the Israelites and Egyptians who embraced the Atenist faith—Akhenaten/Moses began the Exodus toward the Sinai via the marshy area to the south of Zarw and north of Lake Temsah, as this watery route would hinder the pursuit of Egyptian chariots. After a time Akhenaten/Moses then marched north toward Gaza and attempted to storm the city with his Shasu allies. Seti I, son of Ramses, led an army against Akhenaten/Moses, the Israelites, and the Shasu, and defeated them, with great slaughter, at many locations on the Horus Road as well as central Sinai.

It is likely that Akhenaten/Moses was killed by Seti I himself in the course of these military operations.

http://www.dwij.org/forum/amarna/10_moses_akhenaten.htm

Interesting twist, if Moses did reject the old Gods when entering in age of ram then did Jesus reject the old God too when entering in age of piscies, and if there wasnt real person of Jesus still the old Gods were rejected since nowdays in the end of age of piscies majority of Christian people dont know that they are actually worshipping personification of Sun hence the old God from age of ram, the sun, were replaced with ManGod Jesus(Horus) and what will happen in Catholic church when we enter in the age of aquarius around 2150 ? lol :D
I mean if Moses was Akhenaton.
If there was Jesus, was he worshipping same Gods as Jews, I have to say that I´m not so sure anymore, not quite easy question keeping in mind that there is possibility that Jesus wasnt real person.

Some interesting points. I'm good either way.
Some things I don't like:

1. Astrology. What do changing views have to do with some order of stars? No, no.
2. These roots of names are a fine game, but more than once it happens that you can stretch it to such a degree that you can put what you want under it.
3.The monotheism of Moses differed from that of Akh...ton. Yeah, I still think so.

4. Some of those history "facts" I've never heard of. Of course it's well possible that I have been ignorant of them, but it's also possible that there's something fishy going on. I'll have to look into it when have time.

5. I doubt there were any considerable amount of semite slaves in Egypt during the reign of Ak...ton.

These're just my first impressions after reading your post.

Some interesting points. I'm good either way.
Some things I don't like:

1. Astrology. What do changing views have to do with some order of stars? No, no.
-I dont know, such were the psyche of man back then. Everything in their religion were attached to sky, the sun and its movements. Its not just order of some stars, it is the constellation where sun arises in the morning and that changes over time i.e. in 2150 sun will arise from house of aquarius, and keeping mind that the sun = God, so it was something remarkable for them I´m sure. Even the pyramids were constructed by stars, they did posses great knowledge of astrology so I´m sure they did know this cycle of sun within constellations.

Religion Through the Astrological Ages
http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resources/articles/getarticle.asp?ID=68

2. These roots of names are a fine game, but more than once it happens that you can stretch it to such a degree that you can put what you want under it.
-Yes I know, but words always come from something, from what they come from is always debatable but it doesnt weaken this case.

3.The monotheism of Moses differed from that of Akh...ton. Yeah, I still think so.
-In big picture it is the same, one God, maybe all the meanings of that have changed over time. Looking forward to your reasonings for this.

4. Some of those history "facts" I've never heard of. Of course it's well possible that I have been ignorant of them, but it's also possible that there's something fishy going on. I'll have to look into it when have time.
-There is always that possibility :)

5. I doubt there were any considerable amount of semite slaves in Egypt during the reign of Ak...ton.
-If Israelite women marries the King of Egypt and have a son with him, Akhenaton, I cant see why wouldnt there been enough Israelites to follow him. Could slaves mean = expelled people = no rights in Kingdom = slave ?

These're just my first impressions after reading your post.
-Likewise, this is just top of my mind, have to do some more research :)

of course, there is only one god

yaveh
christian god
allah

all the same person

Incorrect. They are not the same Person. Christ, the God of the Jews--and the Gentiles--is not 'allah'. 'allah' makes this distinction himself...Arabs, being decended from Abraham but not Isaac are Gentiles like Abraham was. Therefore, as God of Jew and Gentile alike, Christ is their God, not 'allah'.

Incorrect. They are not the same Person. Christ, the God of the Jews--and the Gentiles--is not 'allah'. 'allah' makes this distinction himself...Arabs, being decended from Abraham but not Isaac are Gentiles like Abraham was. Therefore, as God of Jew and Gentile alike, Christ is their God, not 'allah'.

Why do you not capitalise Allah?

Christ is who's God? Christ is my God, Yaveh is my God, Allah is my God, because they are the same Person with different names.

Christ is my God, Yaveh is my God, Allah is my God, because they are the same Person with different names.

Trust me when I tell you 'Norsefire' is your god.

Trust me when I tell you 'Norsefire' is your god.

?
Please clarify

Why do you not capitalise Allah?
....or what???

....or what???

Or nothing, but it's disrespectful.

Like to a Jew, if I said something like "Allah is God, and yet your 'yaveh' is shit" that is disrespectful

Also, Yaveh Jesus and Allah are one God.

I just remember this piece :) Hippies were also "destroying old gods ~ reforming humanity"

Age of Aquarius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I1y3jHgxA

-One can play with a thought that John Lennon is looked as "Christ" in distant future :D
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/getty-beards3.jpg

Romans 1:20” For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse“

-This could be defination of the sun also. "invisible attribute" ~ sunlight

Sigh... Akhenaton died as honest pharaohs do. There was a "burrial" ceremony.

When modern archaeologists came across the strangely-drawn figure of Akhenaten in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna in the middle of the 19th century, they were not sure what to make of him. Some thought he was a woman disguised as a king. By the early years of the 20th century when the city of Amarna had been excavated and more became known about him and his family, Akhenaten became a focus of interest for Egyptologists, who saw him as a visionary humanitarian as well as the first monotheist.

Its from the same article above, did bring it just in case somebody missed it.

...keeping mind that the sun = God...This could be defination of the sun also. "invisible attribute" ~ sunlight

No...your comment --as written--would "be defination" or rather, example of, Paul's comments here:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

No...your comment --as written--would "be defination" or rather, example of, Paul's comments here:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

-You have taken two sentences of mine out from two different post, and put it together, so I dont quite follow what are you after.
-In wich Pauls post was that, I dont know in what that sentence is relating.

-In sentence one I was referring that sun = God to Egyptians
-In sentence two I said that it COULD mean...

Cheers

When modern archaeologists came across the strangely-drawn figure of Akhenaten in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna in the middle of the 19th century, they were not sure what to make of him. Some thought he was a woman disguised as a king. By the early years of the 20th century when the city of Amarna had been excavated and more became known about him and his family, Akhenaten became a focus of interest for Egyptologists, who saw him as a visionary humanitarian as well as the first monotheist.

Its from the same article above, did bring it just in case somebody missed it.

I think that Ak..ten might have had some birth defect, genetic illness or something.
Not that improbable with all that interbreeding. Besides he had a wife and three daughters. If they were not adopted, A..ten probably was a male.

Why do you not capitalise Allah?

Christ is who's God? Christ is my God, Yaveh is my God, Allah is my God, because they are the same Person with different names.

God goes by (no doubt) countless names in the universe.
All Gods and Goddesses are simply various portrayals of God each with the cultural habits of the people involved factored into it.
The overall consensus of thousands of near death accounts from around the world seems to back this up.

Lack of oxygen in the brain. Similar physiological situations create similar hallucinations.
If you discuss the "oneness of god" please do so from an anthropological point of view, not mystical/paranormal.

Lack of oxygen in the brain. Similar physiological situations create similar hallucinations.
If you discuss the "oneness of god" please do so from an anthropological point of view, not mystical/paranormal.

Yes, I have heard all the skeptics claims on NDEs'. They do not explain well enough the commanality of the patterns that emerge after studying hundreds of them.
Although I will remain open to it ultimately being just another "phenomena".

Without extra-biblical (or whatever religous text in question) support to the "oneness of God" ,you are simply faced with endless circular arguments as each group will factor in extreme bias on their ideas about God and never accept any information simply based on an anthropological view.

All Portrayals of God according to "the cultural habits of the people involved" fall short and cannot properly be called "portrayals"... the only accurate portrait humanity has of God is that which is found in His Word--Written and Incarnate i.e. Jesus Christ:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person, and upholding all things by the word of His power...

I rest my case!:rolleyes:

Avatar ..my apologies ..I will refrain from references to paranormal activity and in the future post in the context of this thread.
Cheers!

In support of:-I dont know, such were the psyche of man back then. Everything in their religion were attached to sky, the sun and its movements. Its not just order of some stars, it is the constellation where sun arises in the morning and that changes over time i.e. in 2150 sun will arise from house of aquarius, and keeping mind that the sun = God, so it was something remarkable for them I´m sure. Even the pyramids were constructed by stars, they did posses great knowledge of astrology so I´m sure they did know this cycle of sun within constellations.

Religion Through the Astrological Ages
http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resources/articles/getarticle.asp?ID=68

Stellar distances and atomic distances are roughly equal in a ratio sort of way. Do you doubt the integrity of say, your hand?

I rest my case!:rolleyes:

Avatar ..my apologies ..I will refrain from references to paranormal activity and in the future post in the context of this thread.
Cheers!

Yo Nova900, I wouldn't worry too much 'bout the thumper, s/he seems to be rather fixated...

All this debate around Moses' connection with Egyptian magic not only makes me think even more that the god of Christ different than the god of the Jews, but that maybe, just maybe that Jehovah is a different 'god' than the gods* of the book of Genesis.
And that Jehovah is NOT the god of all creation, that Jehovah is a poser, an interloper.

*I haven't looked at it for many years but it seemed that more than 1 entity/deity is referenced.

-Akhenaten and missing mummy ?

In year 14 Akhenaten´s reign, Nefertiti herself vanishes from historical record, and there is no word of her after that date. Her disappearance coincides with the rise of co-ruler Smenkhkare to the throne. Smenkhkare is thought to have been married to her daughter Meritaten, and may have become Akhenaten´s co-regent for a few years before Akhenaten´s death. He certainly ruled Egypt for a brief period since he is attested in his Year 1 one a wine label from "the House of Smenkhkare".

However, Smenkhkare is also depicted in many of the same ways as Nefertiti was, and his regnal name, Nefernefruaten, is quite similar to that of Nefertiti. He is sometimes depicted as lookig very femine, and even his name was sometimes written with a femine ending. This has led some scholars to believe that Smenkhkare was in fact another name Nefertit, and instead of falling from grace or dying, Nefertiti actually rose in power, taking the throne for herself after the death of her husband.
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/akhenaten1.htm

......................

In 1332 BC Akhenaten died, the circumstances never explained. His memory and all that he had created soon to erased from history not to be found for centuries later.

Of all the royal mummies ever discovered none has ever caused more controversy then the one found in tomb 55 of the Valley of the Kings.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, Theodore Davis, a wealthy American excavating in Egypt, discovered a tomb in which a burial from the Armana period had been reinterred. This tomb was clearly unfinished, and the burial a hasty one. Gilded wooden inlay panels on the floor and against the wall. They bore the damaged image of Akhenaten worshiping the sun disc and the name of Queen Tiy.

In a niche were four beautiful alabaster jars that held the internal organs of the mummies. Lying on the floor was a badly damaged but beautiful coffin made with thousands of paste in-lays and semi-precious stones in the shape of protective wings. The cartouches containing the occupants name had been hacked out.

When they opened the coffin they found a mummy wrapped in gold-leaf. But as they touched the mummy it crumbled to dust leaving the excavators with a pile of disarticulated bones at the bottom of the coffin. But beneath the skeleton, the last sheet of gold, seemed to have the damaged named of Akhenaten written on it. The pelvis was wide like a female's. The head was elongated.

What really became of Akhenaten's mummy still remains a mystery. Fragments of sculpture and carving from the royal tomb at Akhetaten shows that his body was originally put there, but no sign of the mummy remains. It is possible that followers of the Aten feared for it's destruction, which would deny him eternal life, and moved the body to a place of safety
www.crystalinks.com/akhenaten.html (akh1)

-Intresting issue, there is so much information, its like putting together 1000 pieces puzzle and having 10 0000 pieces.

If you look at the Bible as stories of man's understanding of his relationship with God, then the Christian and Jewish deities are not incompatible. What is changing is not God, but our understanding of how God wants us to live and relate with God.

A more revelent point is that while Christians say Jesus is the Jewish Messiah on earth, I understand where Jews are coming from if they don't believe the idea of Messiah presented in the Old Testament was realized in Jesus.

Ram ~ Jews / Piscies ~ Christians / Aquarius ~ ?

I understand where Jews are coming from if they don't believe the idea of Messiah presented in the Old Testament was realized in Jesus.

You do? Can you expand on that a bit further? Precisely where are they coming from--according to Scripture--such that they "don't believe the idea of Messiah presented in the Old Testament was realised in Jesus"?

The Old Testament was all the early Christians had to work with when it came to understanding the Messiah. The majority of early Christians were Jews, including many priests, scribes, and pharisees...

To rehash a post I made way back.

Read what Jesus actually said and did rather than over emphaszing what Paul and others said about him after he was gone.

He always seemed to me to be attempting to reform the Jewish religion rather than proposing a new one. This seems especially indicated by his wrath at the money lenders on the temple grounds. This wrath was probably also directed at the priests and those who sold sacrificail animals. At that time, there was a scam involving those latter two groups.

BTW: I happen to be an atheist who was raised by a Catholic mother and a Quaker father. In threads like this one, I think posters should indicate their religious background & basic view toward religion. Readers should be given that data to use in judging bias.

Good point about the temple incident. I think it's a good argument for the Jahve side.

To rehash a post I made way back.

Read what Jesus actually said and did rather than over emphasizing what Paul and others said about him after he was gone.

He always seemed to me to be attempting to reform the Jewish religion rather than proposing a new one. This seems especially indicated by his wrath at the money lenders on the temple grounds..

This wrath was probably also directed at the priests and those who sold sacrificial animals. At that time, there was a scam involving those latter two groups.
A scandal involving the members of the priesthood, huh. There always is.
BTW: I happen to be an atheist who was raised by a Catholic mother and a Quaker father. In threads like this one, I think posters should indicate their religious background & basic view toward religion. Readers should be given that data to use in judging bias.
My "basic view toward religion"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70409

Mod note: Please no talk of personal beliefs in CR. Evidence is evidence. If you have an argument and back it up with proof whether you are a christian or a hindu doesn't matter.

Mod note: Please no talk of personal beliefs in CR. Evidence is evidence. If you have an argument and back it up with proof whether you are a christian or a hindu doesn't matter.


What's your point?

You do? Can you expand on that a bit further? Precisely where are they coming from--according to Scripture--such that they "don't believe the idea of Messiah presented in the Old Testament was realised in Jesus"?

The Old Testament was all the early Christians had to work with when it came to understanding the Messiah. The majority of early Christians were Jews, including many priests, scribes, and pharisees...

I agree that some Jews converted to Jesus' new interpretations of Judaism. However, in the Old Testament Messiah is the central figure of expectation. Toward the end of Isaiah (around chapter 63) we begin to see how the Israelite worldwide king would gain rule, in other words how the Gentiles would be gathered into the kingdom. At this point the Messiah is a conqueror, trampling in anger, blood spattering garments. (Isaiah 63:3). How could the Israelites have seen that part of their Messiah in a man who rode a DONKEY (or colt) into Jerusalem. Jesus didn't have an army. He preached of nonviolent responses when being provoked.

I agree that some Jews converted to Jesus' new interpretations of Judaism. However, in the Old Testament Messiah is the central figure of expectation. Toward the end of Isaiah (around chapter 63) we begin to see how the Israelite worldwide king would gain rule, in other words how the Gentiles would be gathered into the kingdom. At this point the Messiah is a conqueror, trampling in anger, blood spattering garments. (Isaiah 63:3). How could the Israelites have seen that part of their Messiah in a man who rode a DONKEY (or colt) into Jerusalem. Jesus didn't have an army. He preached of nonviolent responses when being provoked.

I appreciate your answer...thx.

Consider Luke 4:16-21... when Jesus addressed those present at the synogogue in Nazareth He quoted Isaiah 61, beginning with verse one, but then suddenly stops half way through the first sentence of verse two:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD...

As it says, He then closed the scroll, handing it to someone nearby, and sat down. With everyone looking at Him, He stated catagorically "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." If you will check the passage Jesus was quoting, you will find the second half of verse two reads thusly:

and the day of vengeance of our God...

He left that portion out, and for good reason. Essentially, it is a line of demarcation, differentiating between the activity of God on earth with respect to Christ's First Advent, and that which will surround His Second.

Christ proceeds to remind them of their history...how Israel had missed out on previous blessings/visitations of/by God due largely to their inability--due to their unwillingness--to "put two and two together" when it really mattered. Why? Well a cursory reading of their history as recorded in the Old Testament reveals them repeatedly resisting God's activity on their behalf either through unbelief or disobedience--more often than not by a combination of the two--the end result being God was unable to work among them. This sad state of affairs is reiterated by Stephen in Acts chapter 7, culminating in his murder.

Countless examples supporting Christ's comments regarding God being unable to work among His own people, along with Stephen's retracing the Jewish peoples proclivity for disobedience and unbelief could be given...the bottom line according to God's Word is they are without excuse, making it clear the blame for their rejecting of Christ rests squarely on their shoulders.

How could the Israelites have seen that part of their Messiah in a man who rode a DONKEY (or colt) into Jerusalem. Jesus didn't have an army. He preached of nonviolent responses when being provoked.

When Herod asked the chief priests where the Messiah was to be born, they responded with the correct answer...Bethlehem. When push came to shove, they certainly had the means to put all the pieces together, and many Jews--not "some"--did just that. So, "How could the Israelites have seen that part of their Messiah in a man who rode a DONKEY (or colt) into Jerusalem."? The same way they ferreted out the location of The Messiah's birthplace, i.e. by consulting Scripture. Let's take your example, Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

It's right there in the OT for anyone to see...again, consider Jesus came right out and told them the Isaiah passage had been fullfilled as they listened to Him speak, before their eyes...He was speaking to them plainly, no parables or cryptic speech...they simply chose not to believe Him, and in fact attempted to kill Him.

When you say Jesus didn't have an army and that He preached nonviolent responses when being provoked you are correct. He did not have an army at that time... However, at the time of His Second Advent, Revelation 19 reveals He will in fact have an army...allusions to Isaiah 63 are found particularly in verses 11-21.

The non violent responses are directed to His followers...not Him. Indeed Romans 12 (alluding to Deuteronomy 32:35) declares:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

And so He shall.

Thanks! I appreciate your time in answering, and I enjoyed your insight. I know that Jesus claimed Messiahship and was aware of the Old Testament prophecies about him. Maybe the Jewish people who rejected Jesus' claim did not anticipate that salvation would be opened up to Gentiles BEFORE the bloodshed. Does the OT indicate a period of waiting between the arrival of the Messiah and the vengeance.

I don't quite understand what you mean here:

Maybe the Jewish people who rejected Jesus' claim did not anticipate that salvation would be opened up to Gentiles BEFORE the bloodshed.

Can you rephrase what you are saying above?

Does the OT indicate a period of waiting between the arrival of the Messiah and the vengeance.

Yes. Study the book of Daniel...also, in that same book, the precise timing of the Messiah's arrival was predicted...copies of this scroll must have remained in the area that was Babylon after the Jews returned from exile, as "the wise men from the east" really would've had no other way of understanding when the time was right to seek "He that is born King of the Jews"...again, the timetable was right in front of them (the Jews) and here are gentiles seeking the Jewish King... all the while amazingly the Jews themselves are oblivious to that which God had done (prophecy the timetable/count down to the arrival of their Messiah) and was now doing in their midst (The Incarnation).

I think I WILL study Daniel next. Right now I'm studying the Sermon on the Mount. I understand that multiple kingdoms are mentioned in the OT, but I haven't found a specific timetable yet. People have tried to use scripture to predict the time of the Second Coming since the scripture was written, and many have failed badly. My impression is that some of those OT predictions are so non-specific that scholars disagree on which historical events they actually point to. I know Jewish people say that their holy scriptures were modified or mistranslated so that they look like they point to Christ. They do not accept that their Messiah would die and be resurrected prior to coming back and establishing the temple and the peaceful world. I'm certain you will get more intelligent discourse with me after I study Daniel more in depth. I appreciate that this forum has highlighted my need for more Bible knowledge -- bowing out now....

Lack of oxygen in the brain..

However, Sherwin Nuland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_B._Nuland

a surgeon, pointed out that:

"When the brain has been starved of oxygen for longer than the critical two to four minutes, its injury becomes irreversible."

There have been many NDEs during which the brain was starved of oxygen for a much longer time than the critical two to four minutes without the near-death experiencers (NDErs) suffering any noticeable brain damage.

Ok...'nuff said ;)

My impression is that some of those OT predictions are so non-specific that scholars disagree on which historical events they actually point to
How about none?
I understand that multiple kingdoms are mentioned in the OT, but I haven't found a specific timetable yet. People have tried to use scripture to predict the time of the Second Coming since the scripture was written, and many have failed badly.

"113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Gospel of Thomas

How about none?

:roflmao:

However, Sherwin Nuland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_B._Nuland

a surgeon, pointed out that:

"When the brain has been starved of oxygen for longer than the critical two to four minutes, its injury becomes irreversible."

There have been many NDEs during which the brain was starved of oxygen for a much longer time than the critical two to four minutes without the near-death experiencers (NDErs) suffering any noticeable brain damage.

Ok...'nuff said ;)

Brain is a very delicate organ. Not all people react similary to trauma, drugs, etc.
No oxygen was just a suggestion, I'm not a neuroscientist.

I've always heard they are very different. And the Jews have always believed there is a Messiah, they just never expected it to be Jesus. To the day the Jews still waiting for the Messiah to come.

Oh yeah:

"Is the god of Christ the god of the Jews?"

Yes.

The same God that brought the Jews out of Egypt into the wilderness is the same God that set a pattern for our faith as Jesus Christ the Son in the wilderness after being tempted of Satan.

The Jews were chosen so that Jesus Christ can come from a line of people whose faith God has sanctified for their righteousness through the covenant of Moses keeping them undefiled.

When Jesus established His ministry He selected disciples (who later became confirmed apostles) to guard His knowledge and steward it to believers.

After His death He had fulfilled God's will as through the shedding of the blood of the spotless lamb God set the terms of the new covenant in Jesus Christ the mediator. A new covenant in which the tools have been sprinkled with the blood of Christ thus making Him our contact point for faith and thus sanctifying our faith so that we are made conformable into His very image.

He is the altar, He is the sacrifice, He is the door to eternal life. This is why He rose again.

The Jews expected the Messiah to arrive much later than He did as was written in their scriptures. Even the demons were confused as they asked Him if He had come to torment them before their time.

He broke the law of the Sabbath day because He IS the Sabbath. Our souls can now find rest in Him when we labor with His knowledge and His tools. God's Spirit makes our faith living through these and His work in the inner man is made effectual.

Now is the time that true belivers will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth by His terms and conditions. The covenant of Jesus Christ which was purchased with His blood.

Warning: preaching will not be tolerated, it will be deleted or moved to the Religion forum.

info: Your other post with the answer to it has been moved to the following thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67177

cool

I wonder if the current god of the Christians is the god of Jesus.

My knowledge of the Bible strongly suggests that Jesus viewed himself as a reformer rather than the initiator of a new religion. If so, the god of Jesus is the god of the Jews, but not the god of Christianity.

In reading the Bible, try to decide what Jesus actually said & did as opposed to what others claimed he said or did. Much of current Cristian theology is due to Paul, not jesus.

In particular, note his actions with the so-called money lenders at the temple. It is well known that the priest, money lenders, and sellers of sacrificial animals were co-conspirators in a scam.The so-called money lenders were actually money changers. Tribute to the temple had to be in Shekels, the official currency of Judaism. Those who came from a distance for Passover & other events at the temple often had only foreign currency. The money changers exchanged the foreign money for official shekels at very unfavorable rates, with the approval of the priests, who got a cut of the action.


The priests would disapprove of sacrificial animals due to alleged minor blemishes. This forced the owner to buy an approved animal from a priest-sponsered vendor, who overcharged and gave the priest a cut. The visitor to the temple often sold the "blemished" animal to the vendor (at an unfavorable price) rather than take it home, which might be a long distance from the temple. Such animals would subsequently be approved by the priest and sold at a handsome profit to another visitor. The priests were given a cut on all such transactions.I suppose there were other scams involving the preists.

My view of Jesus was that he thought of himself as a Jew who was qualified to advocate reform of what he viewed as behavior and concepts contrary to the Torah. He also seemed to want to tone down some of the jarsh punishments by indicating that almost all were guilty of some infraction of the mosaic code.

BTW: I think that posters to threads relating to religion (and certain other subjects) should provide some background. For example, some might surmise from my above post that I was Jewish and/or that I favored Judaism over Christianity, which is not the case.

I am an atheist raised by Christian parents. I went to Sunday school & attended religious services in compliance with my parents' wishes. My early religious training did not convince me that religion was a valid belief system, resulting in my becoming an atheist before I was an adult.

Thaks for your input. Can you please elaborate on how the early christian or Jesus's idea of god differed from the nowaday christian belief?

p.s. If people can refer to their sources so that the information can be checked it doesn't matter what faith or non-faith is the poster.

Here's a summary for a little hypothesis I have invented and been pondering on for a while.

Is the god of Christ the god of Jews?

I won't spend a lot of time giving references in the hope that the people here know the background information.
I'm sorry if you don't, but I'm too tired to dig through books right now.

So, consider the things we think Jesus Christ said (irrelevant if that was his name, or one person), he spoke of love and unity, and the kingdom of god here on Earth, a kingdom that is available to anyone, if (s)he opens the heart to the great mystery (God) and sees.
He spoke of the unity of all things and the manifestation of the realization of that unity is love, and that everyone who achieves that realization becomes just like he was - one with the father, God.
Almost Buddhist-like, yes? But that's another story altogether. :)

Now the god of the Jews - Jahve.
First see - the god of Jews, not the god of the world, only Jews were his chosen people and the only promised land was the land of the sandy Jerusalem and the territories around. He also proclaimed to be the only god and had a lot of other characteristics that by christian and nowadays standarts were not very pleasant, not a god of love at all.

So here comes Jesus and teaches about the universal God that is everything among people that generally were Jews and who also had only one god, but that god was tribal. So I think it is not a far too leap to assume that the Jews mistook Jesus god for Jahve, because they knew that there was only one god, and the others were devils, and if Jesus was talking about a God, then he was referring to Jahve

The people who didn't make that association were prosecuted and gradually disappeared, they were called the gnostics.

So here's what I think happened - the Jews together with Roman government assimilated christianity and transformed it into Catholicism, a new faith, a combination of the old judaism and the new christianity.
The real christianity disappeared with the gnostics, and the main reason for it was that a god of love is not a very good god to organise state and people around, and not a very good support mechanism of the priestly caste.

This is all in very few words, I hope you get the general idea and can fill in the blank pieces (with your knowledge) which I leaped across to save time and my fingers, because this is enough starting material for a Masters degree paper.

yes

Jahveh is sounded yahweh for those of you who didnt realize.

Also, I would say no, unless you are a Mesianic Jew. They keep the Jewish traditions, but still believe in the resurrection of Christ.

Thaks for your input. Can you please elaborate on how the early christian or Jesus's idea of god differed from the nowaday christian belief?

p.s. If people can refer to their sources so that the information can be checked it doesn't matter what faith or non-faith is the poster.

There really isn't much of a difference, besides the misinterpritations of the Bible that the early Christians had, and that we may have now.

Avatar, I may not know your religion. But, you show a lot more respect than most people do these days.

Thaks for your input. Can you please elaborate on how the early christian or Jesus's idea of god differed from the nowaday christian belief?

p.s. If people can refer to their sources so that the information can be checked it doesn't matter what faith or non-faith is the poster.

Also, there was a lot of corruption of the popes. And the crusades, which was one area where the Christians/Catholics did make a HUGE mistake, which is a huge factor to what pushes people away from the Christian faith.

Avatar: You posted.Can you please elaborate on how the early christian or Jesus's idea of god differed from the nowaday christian belief?

p.s. If people can refer to their sources so that the information can be checked it doesn't matter what faith or non-faith is the poster. It is not related to the concept of god, but consider the modern dogma of many (?most?) Christian faiths and the words actually attributed to Jesus in the 4 gospels. Jesus as a sacrificial lamb atoning for all of our sins is central to most Christian theology. This concept is from Paul and others who preached after Jesus was crucified. It is not derived from the words or actions atrributed to Jesus in the 4 gospels.

Blood sacrifice is an old testament concept, strongly suggesting that the early Christians (like Paul) had Old Testment beliefs which were later distorted into viewing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb.

If an important tenet of modern Christianity seems to be unsupported by the words & actions of Jesus, I would claim that Jesus was not a Christian. His god was not the god of the modern Christians. His god was the god of the Old Testament made a bit more forgiving and less militant.

The above and my previous posts, are derived from my early study of the Bible and based on some literature relating to the Bible. A study of the 4 gospels strongly indicate that the god believed in by Jesus was the Old Testament god, not the god of modern Christians.

Similarly, it seems to me that the theology of Jesus was essentially what he believed to be the intent of the Torah modified by some compassion for people. His theology seems more like Old Testament theology than modern Christian theology.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no sources of information about Jesus other than the Bible and the documents translated to produce it. The only other source I ever heard about is a short paragraph about Jesus by the historian Josephus, written at least 100 years after the death of Jesus. Even this reference material is considered suspect by some scholars who claim that it was rewritten many years after Josephus wrote it.

Furthermore, the Bible has very little reliable information about actions of & words spoken by Jesus other than the information in the 4 gospels. The 4 accounts are similar, but differ on various non trivial details. The differences indicate some level of historical inaccuracy.

Some Scholars believe that Mark was a contemporary of Jesus and an eye witness to much of what he wrote, suggesting that his gospel is more reliable than the other three. No credible scholars make similar claims about the other three gospel writers.

I have neither the linguistic knowledge nor the sources required to verify the accuracy of various English translations of the Bible. I assume that the translators were competent and minmally biased.

The information in the New Testament was not written down for at least 50 to 100 years after the events. Hence its accuracy is somewhat suspect.