Bono: Who Is Jesus?

[allodial]

I suppose the video doesn't get into detail on Bono's perspectives on the Bible. However, its great to know that he's not gone off the secular cliff. Anyone that knows the meaning of the name Yshua/Yashua/Jesus (Greek-ized) knows the connection with to the name of "the Father". The Father brings into manifestation that which his children require, desire or need.


The worthwhile point: someone that I've listened make music since U2 - Boy (album) came out has stuck to his guns without being twisted up in Satanism or utter depravity. Roman-ism/Westianity aside, the original doctrines aren't Roman creations.

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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The genealogy at Luke 3 even lists Adam as a 'son of God' (Luke 3:38).

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

From what I gather, Muslims are taught the idea of a God not having any sons (seems analogous to a type of alienation--for them). Often, if the opportunity arises they have evidenced preferring a proof to the contrary from the OT. Always they would eagerly recall the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their encounter with Nebuchadnezzar...

Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellers, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God

Even then there was an enmity between a Babylonian king and believers.



The idea of a son of God isn't new to the NT as some I've come along might insist. Its definitely not a strange idea to the Greek or Roman Pantheons. Even these days sovereign states or the People are regarded to have 'sons' or 'children' (see parens patrie or son of the people)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

Therefore be imitators (Gr. word is 'imitators') of God, as beloved children (Eph. 5:1)

The Christian host was using a marvelous lyricist and vocalist to plug Christianity.

The term "Christianity" (relates to the word for 'anointed' no?) is loaded term (has so many meanings that it can be dangerous especially with unlearned, homicidal fanatics running around) especially being that the followers of Simon Magus/Simonians called themselves "Christian". It seems clear that the doctrines taught by Y'shua didn't come from Rome. St. Patrick of Irish holiday fame is said to not have been a Roman Catholic. Much evidence shows that Rome (even after Constantine) was opposed to the non-Roman scripture-centric ecclesia that had spread into areas like northern Africa ala Mark the Evangelist (ca. 43 AD) predating Constantine and Islam by many moons (about 600 years!). There seems to be much evidence that Rome eventually set out to destroy or undermine Mark's work there (and most everywhere else). The destruction of Nubian Christian kingdoms might be very much related to the Arab-Muslim African slave trade. In contrast, the English forbade enslavement of Christians (again the meaning can vary)--whether African or otherwise (funny how Farrakhan and others fail to mention this). To repeat: enslavement of African Christians was and is still against English law. On that note, movies like Belle are deceptive in that they aim to retroactively project the post-Civil-War USA's idea of 'racism' back in time on England.

The Luke 3 genealogy is quite telling and I suspect Y'shua was very much aware of this. I also suspect Y'shua was fully aware of Genesis 1:26-27 (Sefer Bereshit). Y'shua clearly wasn't aiming to establish the typical 'worldly kingdom' (Pentecost 33 AD was pertinent to the coronation encoded at Ephesians 1--a heavenly throne rather than an earthly throne --see Jeremiah 22:28-30; Acts 2:34-36; Ephesians 1 & 2; Luke 24:49).

Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. ... And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Could it be that an earthly throne of David was never part of Y'shua's mission?

Baldwin of Edessa, the first person to take the title King of Jerusalem.

Is it not interesting that the Crusade players didn't show up until about 1,000 years after 66AD-70AD? Evidence gives credence to the coronation encoded at Ephesians chapter 1 to have occurred over 1,033 years before the Crusades (~33AD). Jerusalem is said to have been taken by "Roman Catholic Europe" in 1099 (or about 1033 +66 years after Pentecost Day 33 AD). The notion of the Crusades having to do with Y'shua's mission doesn't seem to add up. I suppose that I type rather neutrally as an observer simply looking at facts.

Just for time perspectives, it is said that Rome was built in 753BC. The encounter of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with Nebuchadnezzar is said to have occurred around 585 BC (just about 170 years later)--and not at Rome.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within.

That might be why an earthly throne wasn't his target. See also: A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36 and Why would a king ride a donkey instead of a warhorse (Zechariah 9:9-10)?. Those who attacked him missed the entire point and that helped things work out as planned (see also Chariots In the Clouds). Y'shua's eyes were on something far more significant and valuable than what they had their eyes on. Also, just because some organization attempted to incorporate Y'shua into their 'portfolio' and project Mithraism onto him--that doesn't make it so. If Y'shua expected a big battle in the carnal sense, obviously two carnal swords wouldn't have been enough. Also, a warhorse would have been the choice 'ride' instead of a donkey. If one sees the bigger picture as to who destroyed or allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, things become more lucid.

Related:

• The Fiery Furnace
• The Church History of Ethiopia (Geddes 1696)
• Adoption and the Bible
• Cleansing of Joshua the High Priest
• King Felipe VI of Spain (current claimant to title King of Jerusalem)
• Ireland’s narrow escape from the Roman Empire (clarification here)
• Why Tarry In Jerusalem?
• Two Sons of Oil
• The Greatest Hoax
• Who Was Cyrus Scofield?
• Is Zechariah 11:12-13 a Messianic prophecy?
• A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36
• re: David Al-Roy / Menahem ben Duji (alleged to be the "King David" (12th century) actually associated with the famous six-pointed star or hexagram--not to be confused with the ancient king of Israel)
• Chariots in the Clouds