If Jesus were the Messiah, why is there so much confusion?

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: I've often wondered why, if Jesus were the One True Messiah, why is there so much confusion about it? God is not the God of confusion. Jesus did not teach confusing philosophies! Where does the big lie end and the real truth begin?
 
God is the name of all that is, including confusion. Confusion is a state of mind that enters when there is progress ahead. A concept is about to land in the consciousness.
Jesus was just Jesus, how you perceive his teachings is up tp you. How others perceive his teaching are also a part you, since we are all one, so therein lies the confusion within you and within God. Within you it is to combine the opposite perception to one and within God to have confusion as a tool for growth suited for humanity.
 
after what you just said, Bebelina I am certainly confused as I am an atheist.(sarcasm)
god is not the name of all that is, but it seem your more confused than I.
I am sure that theists, would not be happy that god, was confused inside, being he's a surposedly omipresent being/thing.
 
It might help to understand that there was already some confusion among Jews by the time Jesus appeared. Their messianic expectations had become greatly politicized, and they were expecting an earthly king to deliver them from the Romans. Jesus claims certainly weren't confusing, but the question posed to the world is: were they valid? After all, there were quite a few people who claimed proudly that they were the "King Messiah" - but failed to stay in the minds of their followers and those after them.

Read What proof do you have that Jesus was the Messiah? at the Jews for Jesus website.
 
Thank you James R. Just checked in for a while.
Audible, that was my definition of God, not the theists. But within my definition it is also theirs, since we are all one, they are just not aware of it on a personal level.
How does one measure the level of confusion and who should be the judge? :D
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I've often wondered why, if Jesus were the One True Messiah, why is there so much confusion about it? God is not the God of confusion. Jesus did not teach confusing philosophies! Where does the big lie end and the real truth begin?
Click to expand...

Judeo Christian Stories regarding Origins answers these question.

This is the World. It is not Heaven. The World is separated from Heaven by the Curse on Adam and Eve.

Lucifer was cast down from Paradise, and so was Adam and Eve.

So, if anything, we could expect more Satanic influence over our Doctrines, then Divine Influences.

Jesus Christ did his best, but died leaving behind no worthy Successor. Elijah had his Elisia on whom he placed His Mantle. But Christ was arrested and executed in a manner that apparently took Him by surprise. Or maybe there simply was no Worthy Successor available.

With nobody able to Rise Up to the Level of Christ's Stature, it was easy enough for Satan to send in his own man -- Paul, whose very name in Aramaic means "Deceiver" (that's if you can believe everything you see on the Web).
 
Free Will is both a Blessing and Curse.

The Messiah was promised to the Children of Abraham.

But not 3 generations transpire when the 2nd Child of Issac steals the Birthright. Then the Children of Jacob sell the Birthright into the Lands of Egypt, in effect surrendering Abraham's right to a Promised Land. The Children of Abraham sold their Inheretance into Slavery.

All these setbacks and diversions wasted time. I think that the Messiah was meant to rise up in the Age of David or Solomon. Why? Because it seems that there was no powerful and domineering Civilization that would thwart the appearance of a New Kingdom. It was a historic opportunity that was missed.

Why wasn't Jesus born in the time of David, when no powerful Civilization would have been readily on hand to thwart Him? Well, the Hebrews then had not sufficient purity. It would take the Prophets Elijah and Elisa to form a Brotherhood that would watch over the Line leading to the Immaculate Conception. With the care of their Brotherhood it would take seven generations of Pure Intent before a Christ Incarnation could be possible. By then it was geopolitically impossible to have any success.

So, Satan apparently guaranteed his victory early on when the Line of Abraham was sabotaged by the deceiving thief Jacob. It is surprising that the Jews still worship Jacob and hold him up as a Model of Behavior to live up to (then it is not very remarkable that they take pride in cheating in business, since their paragon Jacob was a most famous cheat), even after their own scriptures tell us that God hated Jacob so much that He sent his Angel to beat the crap out of him and take back The Blessing of the Patriarch. But with Satan's imposition of Jacob into the formula, the delicate Time Line was screwed up and the hopes for a successful Messianic Dispensation were destroyed.
 
Leo Volont: Judeo Christian Stories regarding Origins answers these question. This is the World. It is not Heaven. The World is separated from Heaven by the Curse on Adam and Eve.
*************
M*W: When I was a good Roman Catholic, our priest taught that the Earth was Paradise.
*************
Leo Volont: Lucifer was cast down from Paradise, and so was Adam and Eve.
*************
M*W: Where exactly is Paradise then?
*************
Leo Volont: So, if anything, we could expect more Satanic influence over our Doctrines, then Divine Influences.
*************
M*W: Yes, this is what we should expect. Christianity was invented by the "Pailis," (somewhat close to phallus), but who's counting?). Everything Pailis did or created is evil. After all, Pailis is the Antichrist. That's why I don't understand why 25% of the world's population believes that Christianity is the only true religion!
*************
Leo Volont: Jesus Christ did his best, but died leaving behind no worthy Successor. Elijah had his Elisia on whom he placed His Mantle. But Christ was arrested and executed in a manner that apparently took Him by surprise. Or maybe there simply was no Worthy Successor available.
*************
M*W: If Jesus was actually crucified (which I don't believe), it was for political reasons and not spiritual reasons for salvation! There was simply no need for a dying demigod savior. Pailis created this myth!
*************
Leo Volont: With nobody able to Rise Up to the Level of Christ's Stature, it was easy enough for Satan to send in his own man -- Paul, whose very name in Aramaic means "Deceiver" (that's if you can believe everything you see on the Web).
*************
M*W: I knew Paul was the "deceiver" even before I read the glossary in Aramaic. Ever since I denied Christianity after I visited The Vatican, it was because of the Pagan influence they called "Christianity!" Paul was exalted even more than Jesus in Rome! Well, Jesus wasn't a Roman Citizen, was he? How can anyone believe in the Christianity Paul created? He ruined Catholicism for me. I knew from that moment, it was a sham.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: When I was a good Roman Catholic, our priest taught that the Earth was Paradise.
*************
Click to expand...

I can't imagine what he could possibly have been thinking. Maybe he was thinking that with the Redemptive Act of the Crucifixion, the Curse of Adam was removed and thus Earth became, by some Doctrinal Inference, Paradise. But he would only need to take a good look around to see that this World is still Contested, and is in fact mostly captured by Evil.

Medicine Woman said:
Leo Volont: Lucifer was cast down from Paradise, and so was Adam and Eve.
*************
M*W: Where exactly is Paradise then?
Click to expand...

Anne Catherine Emerich mentions having seen Paradise. It is a Spiritual Realm suspended between Heaven and Earth. It is over Nepal or Tibet. Whenever she described going there, it was always as though she was describing going to an Area above the Himalayan Mountains.

Medicine Woman said:
Leo Volont: So, if anything, we could expect more Satanic influence over our Doctrines, then Divine Influences.
*************
M*W: Yes, this is what we should expect. Christianity was invented by the "Pailis," (somewhat close to phallus), but who's counting?). Everything Pailis did or created is evil. After all, Pailis is the Antichrist. That's why I don't understand why 25% of the world's population believes that Christianity is the only true religion!

*************
Leo Volont: Jesus Christ did his best, but died leaving behind no worthy Successor. Elijah had his Elisia on whom he placed His Mantle. But Christ was arrested and executed in a manner that apparently took Him by surprise. Or maybe there simply was no Worthy Successor available.
*************
M*W: If Jesus was actually crucified (which I don't believe), it was for political reasons and not spiritual reasons for salvation! There was simply no need for a dying demigod savior. Pailis created this myth!
*************
Click to expand...

These are some of the areas in which we are in perfect agreement (allowing that Christ WAS indeed murdered). I had to look to make sure I was cutting out one of your quotes and not one of my quotes.

Medicine Woman said:
M*W: I knew Paul was the "deceiver" even before I read the glossary in Aramaic. Ever since I denied Christianity after I visited The Vatican, it was because of the Pagan influence they called "Christianity!" Paul was exalted even more than Jesus in Rome! Well, Jesus wasn't a Roman Citizen, was he? How can anyone believe in the Christianity Paul created? He ruined Catholicism for me. I knew from that moment, it was a sham.
Click to expand...

I did not allow Paul to ruin all of Catholicism for me. The Catholic Church is so varied and Non-Monolithic -- it is the Church of the Spiritual Confraturnities as well as the Church of the Pauline Bishops. The Saving Graces of the Catholic Church are in 3 Things -- 1)The Maintenance of the Holy Bloodless Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist instituted by Christ Himself; 2) The Intercessions of the Blessed Virgin (Actually the Feminine Aspect of God); and 3) The Revelations of the Saints. It was these three things that over fifteen hundred years separated the Church from Pauline Influence... never totally... but enough to make the Protestants revolt so that more Pauline Influence could be reasserted.
 
I ran this thought by a Christian friend of mine who threw out an interesting thought. He directed me to Corinthians 1:15 which said in a letter Paul wrote that he had seen the resurrection of Christ and so did James (his brother) and so did the apostles and so did 500 other people. So here is what what we know based on this Biblical passage:

1) Paul claims to have seen the resurrection of Christ
2) Paul claims James to have seen it
3) Paul claims the other apostles to have seen it
4) Paul claims 500 others have seen it.

If I am looking at this correctly a number of senerios could have transpired:

1) Paul did see the resurrection of Christ
2) James did see the resurrection of Christ
3) the apostles did see the resurrection of Christ
4) 500 others did see the resurrection of Christ

or,

1) Paul could have seen it but exaggerated (and or overestimated) how many others have seen it:
2) Paul could have heard about others seeing it and but instead said that he saw it too (with an correct estimation of those who saw it or an exagerated one.).
3) Paul could have fabricated the story

What we do know is that if Jesus was resurrected it would have been a unique case in history since no man has been seen resurrected before or after Jesus. We also know that the brother James and the 12 apostles could have a motive to fabricate (further Christianity) a story like this but what other of the other 500? Were they all Christians? If it was true that Paul had 500 witnesses or even say he really exaggerated and there were only 100 witness surely at least 20 % of those (and probably a lot more) would have written something down about his resurrection on paper that could be historically researched? right?

So what do you say......feels like an scavenger hunt!! What if we scower the net for a few days and try to find how many other historical recordings of individuals with nothing to gain by fabricating (or at least statisically some would have nothing to gain right?) and were not apostles wrote about the resurrection of Chist?
 
This is an easy one...

the reason for the confusion? sin. duh.

its the nature of our flesh....the veil. an inherent reluctance to seek the truth that was genetically encoded into our flesh in the garden.

BUT...to seek the truth is the meaning of life.

SO...seek and you shall find...knock and the door will be opened.
 
*************
M*W: Of your facts/assumptions, I believe #3 to be the most correct, and I have explained why:

"1) Paul could have seen it but exaggerated (and or overestimated) how many others have seen it:

Answer: Paul couldn't have seen a resurrection, because he did not know Jesus; he never saw Jesus; and, he was simply not around at the time of Jesus. Therefore, Paul lied.

2) Paul could have heard about others seeing it and but instead said that he saw it too (with an correct estimation of those who saw it or an exagerated one.).

Answer: Paul could have heard about others seeing the resurrection quite a few decades after it allegedly happened, but the more correct translation of the word "resurrection" is "resuscitation." Therefore, this whole premise is yet another lie told by Paul, because it is unlikely that he knew anyone that had actually seen some sort of "resurrection." In fact, the most likely person to have seen anything surrounding Jesus' resurrection is Mary Magdalene, who is also known under the code name "John" in the NT. There are many associations with MM and John, and the interpretation is worded as if MM and John appear in many scenes together. Interpreted as scholars now believe, the reason MM and John appear together is because they are one and the same person. "Woman, behold thy son (John, the Beloved Disciple). John, (MM, the Beloved Disciple) behold thy mother(MM)" I question here is the word "beloved" hasn't been misinterpreted. I interpret "beloved" as a person who Jesus loves, and a person who loves Jesus.

3) Paul could have fabricated the story"

Answer: Yes, and its clear that he did. Bible scholars today are reinterpreting the NT based on Paul's deceptive writings. Being the misogynist that he has been proven to be, he didn't write the whole truth about MM's relationship with Jesus. This part of the story was intentionally left out. Today, we have many texts, letters, additional gospels, and other writings that have been found after being hidden for almost 2000 years. These documents have been translated proving the many lies we've been told. The NT tells the lies. The suppressed texts tell the rest of the story. Fortunately, the interpretations and translations this time will be unbiased by scholars who seek the truth.
*************
robtex: What we do know is that if Jesus was resurrected it would have been a unique case in history since no man has been seen resurrected before or after Jesus.
*************
M*W: Now, let's not forget about all those resurrections of the dead by Father Nacho.
*************
robtex: We also know that the brother James and the 12 apostles could have a motive to fabricate (further Christianity) a story like this but what other of the other 500?
*************
M*W: The "Church" of James, Jesus' brother, was Jewish -- NOT Christian! That's why Paul stole money from it and had James killed!
*************
robtex: Were they all Christians?
*************
M*W: No, they weren't all Christians. That's only what Paul may have claimed.
*************
robtex: If it was true that Paul had 500 witnesses or even say he really exaggerated and there were only 100 witness surely at least 20% of those (and probably a lot more) would have written something down about his resurrection on paper that could be historically researched? right?
*************
M*W: You'd think so.
*************
robtex: So what do you say......feels like an scavenger hunt!! What if we scower the net for a few days and try to find how many other historical recordings of individuals with nothing to gain by fabricating (or at least statisically some would have nothing to gain right?) and were not apostles wrote about the resurrection of Chist?
*************
M*W: I'd go first to the Gnostic Gospels and the extra-biblical writings of Thomas, Philip, Thecla and Mary Magdalene, for this is where the truth about Jesus will be found.
 
Lori_7: This is an easy one...

the reason for the confusion? sin. duh.

its the nature of our flesh....the veil. an inherent reluctance to seek the truth that was genetically encoded into our flesh in the garden.

BUT...to seek the truth is the meaning of life.

SO...seek and you shall find...knock and the door will be open.
*************
M*W: The question was, "If Jesus were the Messiah, why is there so much confusion?" (About Jesus being the Messiah)? Sinners have always been around. What I'm specifically looking for is the confusion surrounding Jesus' messiahship.
 
wow who needs a scavenger hunt when we got medince woman!! that was quite a response. Looks like you did your homework. I think in Bible school you would have gotten an "f" for you efforts..kidding..sorry i had to say that....

but whom who is father nacho and why is he monkeying with mortality?

do me a favor read part on Corinthians 1:15 and tell me if your post still stays the same will you? \

thanks
 
Lori_7 said:
This is an easy one...

the reason for the confusion? sin. duh.

its the nature of our flesh....the veil. an inherent reluctance to seek the truth that was genetically encoded into our flesh in the garden.

BUT...to seek the truth is the meaning of life.

SO...seek and you shall find...knock and the door will be opened.
Click to expand...


Lori if sin makes us confused and diminishes human intelligence (a by-product of increased confusion levels)

than why do we appriciate in intellingence as we age and sin more?
 
robtex: wow who needs a scavenger hunt when we got medince woman!! that was quite a response. Looks like you did your homework. I think in Bible school you would have gotten an "f" for you efforts..kidding..sorry i had to say that....
*************
M*W: Thank you, robtex! I appreciate your comment.
*************
robtex: but whom who is father nacho and why is he monkeying with mortality?
*************
M*W: robtex, Father "Nacho" was first mentioned by Leo Volont. Father "Nacho" was a priest he knew who healed him of the flu while everyone else in town suffered from it. According to Leo, Father Nacho resurrected several dying/dead patients at a local hospital, and the medical professionals also claimed them to be miracles. For the whole story, I recommend you go back to Leo's posts about Father Nacho and my responses about Father Nacho. I assure you it would be well worth your reading time.
*************
robtex: do me a favor read part on Corinthians 1:15 and tell me if your post still stays the same will you?
*************
M*W: Here's my take on I Corinthians 15:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4: In modern lingo, I interpret what Paul has said to be, 'Also, brothers, I swear unto you the gospel which I have preached to you and told you that you have also received right where you're standing, and through this, I have preached that you all are also saved. You must remember what I preached to you, otherwise, anything else you may believe will be for nothing. I have preached to you that you also have received the same knowledge and/or benefit from my preaching that I have received, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES, that Christ died for our sins.'

Answer: Paul is telling the Corinthians that he had preached to them and had given him everything that he had "received" from Christ according to "scripture." However, there is no scripture to be found anywhere in the Bible that confirms what Paul has stated here. Furthermore, Paul's epistles were written BEFORE the gospels. The gospels weren't even begun when Paul was alive. He'd been dead about two years, and Mark wrote a gospel in 70 AD. Therefore, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:5-6: Here we have Paul's brief rendition of the resurrection of Jesus which CONTRADICTS the gospels. Paul says, "First he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Answer: There is no mention of Mary Magdalene being among the group. Therefore, Paul lied.
---
After that he appeared to more than five hundred at once."

Answer: The earliest record of Paul's claim was by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason where he points out that 'Paul says the resurrected Jesus was seen by five hundred at once, but those 500 didn't not say it themselves! It was Paul who spoke it for them.' Just who were these people, and could their testimony be relied upon? It is, therefore, the testimony of only one man, Paul. Paine states that Paul did not believe one word of the matter at the time it allegedly happened! 'Paul's evidence,' Paine points out, 'is like that of a man who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie.' The Gospels (the scripture Paul referred to, hadn't been written at this time! Paul later contradicted himself when he admitted that of the 500 he mentioned, some of them were actually dead people making it much less than the 500 he quoted. Therefore, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:7-10: After that, Paul said James had seen him and the rest of the apostles.

Answer: Then Paul refers to himself as an apostle, but he was a self-appointed apostle and not an apostle commissioned by Jesus Christ.James never wrote anything that stated he saw Paul in Corinth; thus, it's hearsay. Again, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:11: Paul claims that whether he preached it, or they preached it (the 500), it was all the same thing and that everyone should believe it to be the same thing.

Answer: Paul is simply trying to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes. He's confirming what he preaches is the same thing the 500 preach (even though there's no proof), he confirms it should be believed.
---
I Corinthians 15:12: Paul says he preaches that Christ rose from the dead, but he's asking the Corinthians how can they say Christ has not risen?

Answer: Therefore, they didn't see or hear anything of Christ's resurrection, only what Paul said. Again, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:13-14: Paul says that if there were no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen? 14, and if Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain and their faith is also in vain.

Answer: Paul is using the power of suggestion here to plant the whole idea of Christ's resurrection into the minds of the Corinthians. Enough said, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:15: Paul continues to plant the idea of the resurrection into the minds of the Corinthians by accusing them of being false witnesses of God, because God raised up Christ, and if that was so, they too, would not be resurrected.

Answer: Paul was using fear tactics on the Corinthians! Therefore, Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:16-17: Paul is turning his preaching around to incite fear in the Corinthians when he says: 'For if the dead are not to rise, then Christ did not rise,' and the Corinthians, therefore, don't have faith in God (you lousy sinners!), and they will succumb to their sins which is death. Paul preaches that one cannot just have hope in Christ, but he must also have hope (belief) in the resurrection.

Answer: Fear tactics and propaganda was dumped on those dumb Corinthians. Paul lied.
---
I Corinthians 15:18-...

I think I've made my case. It's really had to read this fine print. In a nut shell, Paul created the myth of the resurrection. It didn't really happen. Paul's egomaniacal history defeats his argument because all this was written BEFORE the gospels. Therefore, the gospel writers (whomever they really were), were most definitely influenced by Paul's writings. From Paul's myths, the gospel writers created the gospel! (1+1=2).

A couple of excellent websites that go on to discuss Paul's deceptive nature in detail can be found at:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

and

http://quicksitemaker.com/disciples/custom.html

Christians believe Paul to be the greatest Christian ever, but if they could only understand that it was Paul's pride talking and was not truly about Jesus but about Paul, himself, maybe they would understand. Once you separate Jesus from Paul's mythological version of him, you would get to know the real Jesus. That's why only 25% of the world's population is still Christian, but Christianity is declining at warp speed. (Thanks to the lies of Paul which are finally being uncovered by biblical scholars!

robtex: if you have a specific question that I could address, let me know. I Corinthians 15 was just too long to go verse by verse.
 
Medicine Woman
Ex-xian (921 posts)

08-18-04, 08:25 PM


M*W: I've often wondered why, if Jesus were the One True Messiah, why is there so much confusion about it? God is not the God of confusion. Jesus did not teach confusing philosophies! Where does the big lie end and the real truth begin?

Hello Medicine Woman,

"Where does the big lie end and the real truth begin?"

Satan the deceiver as an angel of light came to Saul/St.Paul and say, "I am the Jesus of Nazareth" Saul/St.Paul mission to derail Jesus' movement has greatly successful. "why is there so much confusion" --- Saul/St.Paul's mission was to confussion and division.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
battig1370: Hello Medicine Woman,

"Where does the big lie end and the real truth begin?"

Satan the deceiver as an angel of light came to Saul/St.Paul and say, "I am the Jesus of Nazareth" Saul/St.Paul mission to derail Jesus' movement has greatly successful. "why is there so much confusion" --- Saul/St.Paul's mission was to confussion and division.
*************
M*W: I agree with you about S of T. He was the great deceiver. That's why the entire NT was influenced by S of T, therefore, none of it is the truth.

I thought you were a xian! My bad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top