seven8s

No. Which?

Chili

Say "why" is better because knowledge accumilates and that is really all that Jesus is telling us. In Plato's "theory of Recollection" existing knowledge is recalled from the soul into the conscious mind of the child. Rousseau's Emile proved this and today we finally admit that the capacity to learn is genetic in humans because we are doing greater things, yet we fail to acknowledge that we are incarnate beings just trying to get a life of our own.

seven8s

Missed again, the question is ‘how’?

Of course now weare back to 'which'.

God gave Moses one commandment.



Well, I haven’t read Plato but perhaps I’ll give it a spin, and teach you something, maybe ‘how’.

Wrong.

Yes, I understand, you are a believer in the school of hard knocks. I disagree, but acknowledge, to each his own. Perhaps this is ‘how’ justice developed, if necessity is the Mother of all invention. Maybe some day she’ll take the blind fold off, but then again maybe not. There’s always hope.



I don’t know what to tell you Chili...............go get one? But let me give you some advice, you have to know what it is you’re looking for, because to know what you are looking for is to give.

There’s gold in the garden Chili, someday, you’ll figure that out. But first you have to figure out what’s missing in the gold? Once you find that, you put it back, having learned?

Now, when you figure out those little tid bits, get back to me. We’ll see if I agree.

Chili

The "how" is easy if you consider that the TOK was to gather data that must be converted into knowledge before it can be tied down in the TOL where it is to be for many generations but lingers only from generation to generation. This would be why the heavens are created in the plural while the earth is singular and kind of flat so that we can focus on the sparkling reflections from the heavens that indeed require us to be an active participant in the harvest of golden richess while here on earth.

So when Jesus said that he must go to the father so we could do greater things he really just told us that he would be part of the sparkle that illuminates the earth for those who believe in him.

seven8s

Toto
"The Jews" didn't understand this. How can I?


CC


Which Jews, if the jews didn’t understand this? The mothers or the fathers? The ‘body’ of the work or the originator (writer), if the body of the work can be said to be the scriptures (what is written/implanted)?

The body of the work is likened unto a mother if offspring (flesh and blood) is conceived in a mothers womb, made in the image of that particular mother, using mother as a metaphor. The ‘inspiration’ of the work can be said to be the ‘father’ of the work if ‘inspiration’ can be said to be seeds, using father as a metaphor.

The ‘child’ is the work produced, the final outcome of that work, the flesh and blood. To know whom is the father/mother is to know the children. Iow’s what do the children produce if children are sheep, using child as a metaphor, sheep as what follows?

Can I ‘climb into my mothers womb’? But like the ‘feed my sheep’ metaphor, no one asks, ‘how many times’? Yet there were those instructions where ‘ how many times’ were asked.

What is it to climb into your mothers womb, if like a Dog, a Good mother can feed many children, all at the same time?

Even the Children Feed Dogs scrapes from the table, if scrapes are ‘seeds’ then Children are the Farthers/Fathers.



To ask ‘which’ Jews is to ask, what is meant by Jews? Why were Jews used in these scriptures? To defame Jews, defile them, curse them, prosecute them?

What are Jews? What is the one common denominator concerning these Jews that the writer was trying to impress (acknowledging that the writers did a very poor job of ‘implanting’ that impression, that or the readers did a very poor job of interpreting)? I would use the word ‘scattering’, but why scatter? Then I would use the word ‘forming’. From there the word ‘hardening’ becomes interesting.

These are my thoughts, though I acknowledge that they are scattered, not purposefully but scientifically. I read that science shows that as we age, rather then focused, we see the larger picture, which in and of itself says a lot for the younger, more focused picture.

Perhaps someone might find something of interest.........if not, ignore. But I think we live in too violent a world to continue to ignore.

If there are those who live by that book, then that book, and it's teachings must be understood. I'm not sure that I did a very good job of initiating that understanding.............but I'll perfect my understanding, hence argument as I go along.............

I think the 'which' is important to the 'how', which eventually leads to the 'who'.........and ultimately the 'why' (?).

Toto

and well beyond the scope of BCH. Maybe the readers of Elsewhere will appreciate this thread.