Fun Stuff For the History Buffs Here.

[kjw47]

YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.

.

WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".

In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

.

you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.


... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

and that has a bearing on -

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.


both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.

What are you talking about? How can a non being -LOVE?

 

[kjw47]

Yes I do. And you?

No, but I find it strange you think Jesus is the real son of God (impregnated by the HS), and yet do not believe in the trinity. Jesus never mentions Yahweh, he only says , my Lord and my God, and Father.

Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.

Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.

I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?

YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

YHVH(Jehovah) is the creator, he was there before the first creation he did--his master worker( Prov 8)Coll 1:15) = this being at Prov 8 speaking came to earth. It is not God speaking. It is Gods( ancient of days) appointed king(Daniel 7:13-15) was named Jesus as a mortal. It was not his name in heaven. ALL evidence points to Michael. God sent his best.
If anything the Cannanites stole that name by satans will to confuse mortals.

 

[kjw47]

Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.

No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.

Jehovahs Witness?

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles. Therefore we have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father, was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor. then when Titus died, Domitian became Emperor, the trinity.

Jesus was a created being.( Collosians 1:15,Prov 8:22) He was not named Jesus in the OT. Yet always 2nd in command= Michael. The being speaking at Proverbs 8 is the being who was sent by God to earth as a mortal. All evidence points to Michael. God sent his best.

 

[kjw47]

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

.

you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.


... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.

You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.
You also deny that which you never knew, that being the use of Hebrew words.
You would not learn to fly a plane by going to a boating instructor, then why read Judaic scripture & Prophecy through Pagan Rome's NT?

Your interpretation of Genesis is sadly passed to you, the plurality clearly shows it's the hosts(Elohim) leaving their RIGHTEOUS Essence IMAGE, that is called reflecting and manifesting the nature of being righteous-being Shalem (stable/complete/whole).

100% fact--In Hebrew==Elohim is NEVER plural for the true living God. Only for false gods.
Your scholars know this fact--they hide it to deceive.

Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.

Let us( YHVH and his master worker( prov 8) make man in our image= the ability to love and reason.
God created Jesus( the being who came to earth) first and last direct( Collosians 1:15, Proverbs 8) then created all other things through him,becoming Gods master worker-prov 8) This is he speaking at Prov 8. It is not God speaking.

 

[kjw47]

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

.

you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.


... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

and that has a bearing on -

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.


both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???

.

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...

it is your contradiction not mine.

Let us( YHVH(Jehovah) and his master worker( prov 8) make man in our image= the ability to love and reason.
God created this being first and last direct=The speakerat Prov 8- Coll 1:15) the firstborn of all creation.) Then created all other things through this being( Gods master worker) this being came to earth and was named Jesus as a mortal. It is not God speaking at Prov 8. It is the being named Jesus as a mortal=0 doubt. All evidence points toMichael.

 

[Penelope]

Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.

No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.

Jehovahs Witness?

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles. Therefore we have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father, was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor. then when Titus died, Domitian became Emperor, the trinity.

Jesus was a created being.( Collosians 1:15,Prov 8:22) He was not named Jesus in the OT. Yet always 2nd in command= Michael. The being speaking at Proverbs 8 is the being who was sent by God to earth as a mortal. All evidence points to Michael. God sent his best.

Yes well I don't not put verses together from the OT and NT. I don't also just quote verses to make my case.

Sure Jesus was created, by sex , literally.

 

[DOTR]

Jesus was a created being.( Collosians 1:15,Prov 8:22) He was not named Jesus in the OT. Yet always 2nd in command= Michael. The being speaking at Proverbs 8 is the being who was sent by God to earth as a mortal. All evidence points to Michael. God sent his best.

Jehovahs Witnesses are as bad as pagans about attacking Christianity.

 

[irosie91]

Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.

No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.

Jehovahs Witness?

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles. Therefore we have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father, was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor. then when Titus died, Domitian became Emperor, the trinity.

Jesus was a created being.( Collosians 1:15,Prov 8:22) He was not named Jesus in the OT. Yet always 2nd in command= Michael. The being speaking at Proverbs 8 is the being who was sent by God to earth as a mortal. All evidence points to Michael. God sent his best.

WTF are you talking about? "JESUS" is not a name in the OT because it is not a Hebrew name. The historic "jesus" was not "jesus" he was called by an Aramaic NICK NAME derived from his name YEHOSHUA. If "jesus" were to RECONSTITUTE himself today------and walk down the street and you called out
"JESUS"... he would keep walking

 

[BreezeWood]

.
and that has a bearing on -

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.


both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???

.

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...

it is your contradiction not mine.

breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout? There is a line in the poetry called "genesis" at the very beginning which seems to be giving you trouble.
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "...in our image..." seems to be your problem. It is a trick of Hebrew grammar. The
plural first person is used as a kind of SUPERLATIVE------and the word image is
a translation of the TZSELEM which is a kind of vague word sometimes translated as "shadow" which is kinda closer than "image" In the lingo of optics------it may be something like a virtual image. The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance

.

breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout?

It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "

it was codified w/ that one religion in the 4th century composite and consistent to the other two ....

"...in our image..." seems to be your problem.

in our image, after our likeness:

The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance

- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


the above is a declarative statement preeminent to the three desert religions irregardless language, humanity is the form and figure of its creator ... it is your religion, not mine and does contradict a denial of form and figure written in your particular text that is tangential to the depiction of the Almighty by the quote.

you are STRUGGLING to interpret a translation without knowing ANYTHING about the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. The book of Genesis was never "codified" into
ENGLISH. Do you understand the extent of the DIMNESS of your mind?.
I do not know how to say "after our likeness" in Hebrew. I am familiar with the word TSZELEM----sorta..... "likeness" seems a really pathetic translation to me.
la la la Me and MY SHADOWWWW ----walkinggg down the avenueeee la la la.
I read the Koran-----I do not remember how those lines were rendered in the PICTHALL version------and do not care

.

I do not know how to say "after our likeness" in Hebrew. I am familiar with the word TSZELEM----sorta..... "likeness" seems a really pathetic translation to me.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


suffice it to say the Almighty is not a man, wherever that came from ... the translations of the two words, image and likeness simply skirts the descriptive relevancy of the quote granting to man soly in its awfulness the characteristics same as that of the creators and in this case their image and likeness / their form and figure - the contradiction would be yours if the first line is OT and quite lame as servitude has no place in the Everlasting.

 

[HaShev]

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???

.

I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.

You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.

Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.

You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.

Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.

Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...

it is your contradiction not mine.

breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout? There is a line in the poetry called "genesis" at the very beginning which seems to be giving you trouble.
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "...in our image..." seems to be your problem. It is a trick of Hebrew grammar. The
plural first person is used as a kind of SUPERLATIVE------and the word image is
a translation of the TZSELEM which is a kind of vague word sometimes translated as "shadow" which is kinda closer than "image" In the lingo of optics------it may be something like a virtual image. The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance

.

breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout?

It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "

it was codified w/ that one religion in the 4th century composite and consistent to the other two ....

"...in our image..." seems to be your problem.

in our image, after our likeness:

The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance

- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


the above is a declarative statement preeminent to the three desert religions irregardless language, humanity is the form and figure of its creator ... it is your religion, not mine and does contradict a denial of form and figure written in your particular text that is tangential to the depiction of the Almighty by the quote.

you are STRUGGLING to interpret a translation without knowing ANYTHING about the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. The book of Genesis was never "codified" into
ENGLISH. Do you understand the extent of the DIMNESS of your mind?.
I do not know how to say "after our likeness" in Hebrew. I am familiar with the word TSZELEM----sorta..... "likeness" seems a really pathetic translation to me.
la la la Me and MY SHADOWWWW ----walkinggg down the avenueeee la la la.
I read the Koran-----I do not remember how those lines were rendered in the PICTHALL version------and do not care

.

I do not know how to say "after our likeness" in Hebrew. I am familiar with the word TSZELEM----sorta..... "likeness" seems a really pathetic translation to me.

GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.

- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


suffice it to say the Almighty is not a man, wherever that came from ... the translations of the two words, image and likeness simply skirts the descriptive relevancy of the quote granting to man soly in its awfulness the characteristics same as that of the creators and in this case their image and likeness / their form and figure - the contradiction would be yours if the first line is OT and quite lame as servitude has no place in the Everlasting.

You are not getting it because your affiliation shuts you off from listening to what I've revealed past and present. The key is simple to unlock everything, figure out by DEFINING SIMPLE TERMS IN THEIR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE and work from there.
OLAM HABAH=WORLD TO COME=
MESSAGE COMES FROM THE WORLD TO COME (FUTURE [key to understanding the message]) THEREFORE THE HOSTS(Kohanim) EXIST IN THE FUTURE/ MESSAGE TO THE PAST, NOT COMING FROM THE PAST INTO THE FUTURE, HENCE
if you'd pay attention how many times have I told you "the beginning is at the end"-book of Isaiah.
This means ypur linear thinking confuses your ability to seperate the head of the host (kohanim) as the Head (top-arch)Temple Priest(malakh) from The Essence(non form) called God that the Head Rabbi is reflecting/manifesting and thus mediating/teaching/explaining/revealing/deciphering/expressing.
Analogy: tribesmen thought men in planes coming from advanced cultures were gods, SIMILARLY the archaic age not knowing the process or obeying the precepts confuse the messengers or oracles of the message as gods.
When Daniel had visions of the Night (Shalem) he was not Shalem, he was conveying the message of Shalem. What did you guys do when one of the many figures claimed to be "LIKE UNTO" SON OF MAN AND Apostles said it was another to come different name coming through him (as Daniel or Jacob conveyed another) what mistake did you make? You made the oracle the one he was speaking of hence Jehovah's Witness became confused to think Jesus is the messenger [Michael] (son of man) that he was "like unto" (impostering)-rev 1:13.

Sources:
That Jesus is not the son of man he was emulating/impostering(like unto)-rev 1:13
Son of Man will not be in the person of Jesus, but in a different incarnation involving a totally different human being LUKE 6:5, 9:26 , 9:55-56, 12:10 , 17:30 , 18:8, 22:69, John 3:13, Matthew 25:11-13, Mark 14:62
and Mathew20:28 Just as the son of man did not come to be served', but to serve.
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." (Luke 9:55-56)
"Jesus said to him: You yourself said [it]; Yet I say to YOU MEN, FROM HENCEFORTH YOU WILLSEE the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on ‘the clouds’ (gathering of Temple Priests) of heaven (time to come=future)."Matthew26:64
"Then, Jesus said: I am and YOU PERSONS WILL SEE the Son of man sitting at the right hand ofpower and coming with ‘the clouds’ (gathering of Priests) of heaven (Olam Habah=world to come=future)." -- Mark 14:62

 

[Penelope]

Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.

Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.

I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?

YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

Jehovahs Witness?

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

 

[irosie91]

Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.

I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?

YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

your catechism whore did a job on you-----take it to the POOP in rome

 

[HaShev]

Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.

I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?

YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

 

[Penelope]

YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.

I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.

Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

 

[irosie91]

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

"OF COURSE"?? your confusion is understandable,, penny dear----you are ASSUMING that the jews of 2000 years ago were as illiterate as were your ancestors.
They weren't. If there was a BARABBAS "savior figure" at that time around---he would show up in jewish history as such. The NT contains some real history. Romans were certainly crucifying jews-----but not for simple theft. Generally they
crucified PHARISEES. There was a CAIAPHAS------high priest. But he was
a hated ROMAN SHILL. There was a Pontius Pilate------but certainly not one
who repented killing a jew----historically he killed thousands by crucifixion---
with great delight. So far------Jesus could very well have existed as a local
known person ------but not so much. Barabbas as a SAVIOR FIGURE---nope.
Maybe just another run'o'demill Pharisee rebel type
Caiaphas as a despised roman shill---ABSOLUTELY. You got anything at all
that disputes these known realities other than your catechism whore?

 

[HaShev]

Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"

She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away

the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

Here's a resemblances score card to all the christ figures:
Yeshu of 100bc was the result of a fling Mary (the harlot) had with a Roman Soldier (Pantheras), he started out as a Rabbinic student but after he fled to Egypt with his mentor Rabbi to avoid the Jannaeus persecutions he might have lost his will for his religion seeing how people treated each other, so in Egypt he was influenced by Egyptian mysticsm, physical mystical light and underworld (death) teachings.
In learning the Egyptian "forbidden" sorcery tricks and necromancy-(Deut)- he came back with that forbidden trickery and became liken to a healing church scammer *resembling a
Benny Hinn type*.
The Galilean tax revolter Yehuda(died 6bc) lived in the time of Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias(died 35bc) his 2 sons also died by Roman Crucifixion.
They would be resemblances to tax refusing militiamen-but with a more valid cause.
The A.D. Pilate era Christ Theudas by the Jordan who's apostles were martyrs was a Revolter against Rome, his resemblance would be A cross between an American revolutionary/Ghandi/meets Charles Manson (if Theudas was the one who had John killed to steal his flock & was the sexual deviate druggie as some accts recorded).
Another figure if he existed outside the Book of Acts acct, was BarJesus (sonJesus).
His traveling Maggis show with a man named Sergius Paulus (called Paul) as his ring leader, would be liken to Benny Hinn.
Not much is known about The other figures like Benjamin the Egyptian christ figure.
It's sad that Monty Python in mere jest with
"Life of Brian" depicted a more accurate honest depiction of that time period confusion of Christs then so called Biblical era scholars.

 

[irosie91]

Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

Here's a resemblances score card to all the christ figures:
Yeshu of 100bc was the result of a fling Mary (the harlot) had with a Roman Soldier (Pantheras), he started out as a Rabbinic student but after he fled to Egypt with his mentor Rabbi to avoid the Jannaeus persecutions he might have lost his will for his religion seeing how people treated each other, so in Egypt he was influenced by Egyptian mysticsm, physical mystical light and underworld (death) teachings.
In learning the Egyptian "forbidden" sorcery tricks and necromancy-(Deut)- he came back with that forbidden trickery and became liken to a healing church scammer *resembling a
Benny Hinn type*.
The Galilean tax revolter Yehuda(died 6bc) lived in the time of Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias(died 35bc) his 2 sons also died by Roman Crucifixion.
They would be resemblances to tax refusing militiamen-but with a more valid cause.
The A.D. Pilate era Christ Theudas by the Jordan who's apostles were martyrs was a Revolter against Rome, his resemblance would be A cross between an American revolutionary/Ghandi/meets Charles Manson (if Theudas was the one who had John killed to steal his flock).
Another figure if he existed outside the Book of Acts acct, was BarJesus (sonJesus).
His traveling Maggis show with a man named Sergius Paulus (called Paul) as his ring leader, would be liken to Benny Hinn.
Not much is known about The other figures like Benjamin the Egyptian christ figure.
It's sad that Monty Python in mere jest with
"Life of Brian" depicted a more accurate honest depiction of that time period confusion of Christs then so called Biblical era scholars.

ok-----they sound like bonafide characters of the time------as to the character Yehuda tax rebel guy from Galilee-------no doubt you know that one of the church libels related to their Jesus of Galilee is that HE objected to the taxes IMPOSED BY THE TEMPLE on the jews------not the roman taxes-----just the half shekel which
is why DA JOOOOS wanted to kill him ----(but did not know how---so the romans did them a favor)

 

[HaShev]

you are babbling in your usual ignorant and vulgar manner, penny dear.
------stuff you picked up from your
catechism whore? The Barrabas of your silly book------most likely ----did not happen-------the story makes no sense.
Jews had many heroes-------I do not recall a "Barabbas" "Jesus" was a Pharisee-------one of many heroes that
the barbaric dog romans murdered for FUN -----and to entertain the vestal
"virgins" The romans did not crucify
common thieves which your idiot
catechism whore told you was "Barabbas"

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

Here's a resemblances score card to all the christ figures:
Yeshu of 100bc was the result of a fling Mary (the harlot) had with a Roman Soldier (Pantheras), he started out as a Rabbinic student but after he fled to Egypt with his mentor Rabbi to avoid the Jannaeus persecutions he might have lost his will for his religion seeing how people treated each other, so in Egypt he was influenced by Egyptian mysticsm, physical mystical light and underworld (death) teachings.
In learning the Egyptian "forbidden" sorcery tricks and necromancy-(Deut)- he came back with that forbidden trickery and became liken to a healing church scammer *resembling a
Benny Hinn type*.
The Galilean tax revolter Yehuda(died 6bc) lived in the time of Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias(died 35bc) his 2 sons also died by Roman Crucifixion.
They would be resemblances to tax refusing militiamen-but with a more valid cause.
The A.D. Pilate era Christ Theudas by the Jordan who's apostles were martyrs was a Revolter against Rome, his resemblance would be A cross between an American revolutionary/Ghandi/meets Charles Manson (if Theudas was the one who had John killed to steal his flock).
Another figure if he existed outside the Book of Acts acct, was BarJesus (sonJesus).
His traveling Maggis show with a man named Sergius Paulus (called Paul) as his ring leader, would be liken to Benny Hinn.
Not much is known about The other figures like Benjamin the Egyptian christ figure.
It's sad that Monty Python in mere jest with
"Life of Brian" depicted a more accurate honest depiction of that time period confusion of Christs then so called Biblical era scholars.

ok-----they sound like bonafide characters of the time------as to the character Yehuda tax rebel guy from Galilee-------no doubt you know that one of the church libels related to their Jesus of Galilee is that HE objected to the taxes IMPOSED BY THE TEMPLE on the jews------not the roman taxes-----just the half shekel which
is why DA JOOOOS wanted to kill him ----(but did not know how---so the romans did them a favor)

Always recognize who's accounting the story and their motivations, in other words Rome forging & writing the story is displacing their own tax abuses and persecution onto opponents to switch blame and demonize them, much like fake news twists the narrative and changes the story in displacement politics. Proof of this behavior (propaganda) is seen in the
King Herod killing babies farce.

 

[irosie91]

Jesus bar Abbas and Jesus, the son of Ananus, were your Jesuss'.

You are being missinformed, to be historically correct the barabbas story seems to come from the confused 2 Yehudas, one Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ and the other a robber murderer who "ransacked the Temple"
Yehuda the Galionite. Yehuda the galilean tax revolter only makes a fraction of the total story and image of the Jesus mythology and Barabbas was never deemed a christ figure, only confused by similar description attached to their names.

of course he was a savior figure in the NT, that is why the Jews set him free, they didn't want to set free a whimp like Jesus the Christ.

Here's a resemblances score card to all the christ figures:
Yeshu of 100bc was the result of a fling Mary (the harlot) had with a Roman Soldier (Pantheras), he started out as a Rabbinic student but after he fled to Egypt with his mentor Rabbi to avoid the Jannaeus persecutions he might have lost his will for his religion seeing how people treated each other, so in Egypt he was influenced by Egyptian mysticsm, physical mystical light and underworld (death) teachings.
In learning the Egyptian "forbidden" sorcery tricks and necromancy-(Deut)- he came back with that forbidden trickery and became liken to a healing church scammer *resembling a
Benny Hinn type*.
The Galilean tax revolter Yehuda(died 6bc) lived in the time of Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias(died 35bc) his 2 sons also died by Roman Crucifixion.
They would be resemblances to tax refusing militiamen-but with a more valid cause.
The A.D. Pilate era Christ Theudas by the Jordan who's apostles were martyrs was a Revolter against Rome, his resemblance would be A cross between an American revolutionary/Ghandi/meets Charles Manson (if Theudas was the one who had John killed to steal his flock).
Another figure if he existed outside the Book of Acts acct, was BarJesus (sonJesus).
His traveling Maggis show with a man named Sergius Paulus (called Paul) as his ring leader, would be liken to Benny Hinn.
Not much is known about The other figures like Benjamin the Egyptian christ figure.
It's sad that Monty Python in mere jest with
"Life of Brian" depicted a more accurate honest depiction of that time period confusion of Christs then so called Biblical era scholars.

ok-----they sound like bonafide characters of the time------as to the character Yehuda tax rebel guy from Galilee-------no doubt you know that one of the church libels related to their Jesus of Galilee is that HE objected to the taxes IMPOSED BY THE TEMPLE on the jews------not the roman taxes-----just the half shekel which
is why DA JOOOOS wanted to kill him ----(but did not know how---so the romans did them a favor)

Always recognize who's accounting the story and their motivations, in other words Rome writing the story is displacing their own tax abuses and persecution onto opponents to switch blame and demonize them, much like fake news twists the narrative and changes the story in displacement politics. Proof of this behavior (propaganda) is seen in the
King Herod killing babies farce.

yup----that's ^^^^^^ my impression of just about THE WHOLE NT which I
( if I do say so myself.....) concluded independently. ----with special thanks to
the little old lady who gave me a copy of the NT ---(little tiny pocket thing with little
tiny print------long before I developed presbyopia) when I was a curious teen.
That book REEKS of rome.

 

[shimon]

Have you ever made a pie.... You take a little ingrediants from here and a little ingrediants from there throw it into the oven and bake it and now you have a tasty wonderfull desert..... This is the same way they went about creating the new testament fables. Every group was included . Their stories , myths and time frames as well so that all groups could be gathered under the Roman control and the vast empire could profit immensely.... Yes there were different characters and different stories but they were all rewritten and fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle... People forget there was more then one Herod, There was more then one Paul... Certainly it is all confussed because Paul could have come from Apolonius of Tyani but people forget there was also Apolinius of Rhodes who also had access to a huge library and had Roman scribes working with him..... As for the Jesus character many of the fables attributed to him come from anonomous books that were later named Mathew, Mark James etc etc long after the supposed fact of their writings....One could go on and on about these things but it is up to each and everyone of us to try to figure things out for ourselves and not be deceived by stories and myths without basis or just a shallow covering of minute truth covering up huge lies...Yes there are some historical basis for some of these tales but no one person makes up all that is claimed for these characters.... We all have read books such as the Lord of the Rings where amazing stories and lives are created from a mere book and we know none of this occured and it is fantasy but we are entertained by it. We do not get fooled it is real so why would we swallow the tales told us in the new testament unless we wish to be bambozeled and made FOOLS for a christ that never exsisted except in make believe. Ask yourself that...