JonF

You can just put the URL in with no special formatting and it will show up like http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi.

Or you can do somthing like {url=http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi}EvC Forum{/url}, replacing { by [ and } by ], and get EvC Forum.

Wiploc

And you can always click on the http:// button. That brings up a dialogue window asking what you want the hot link to say. I usually have it say, "here." As in, "You can find my ongoing debate on the problem of evil here." Then there's a second dialogue box where you just paste in the url.

crc

Kosh

Another question is why translaters would leave things like "dawn" in there, when the target audience understands that to be morning, rather than sundown? Isn't that the whole point of a translation? To get the same meaning in words that can be understood in the new language?

:banghead:

Infidelettante

I think sir that these little disagreements will be great fun. For the sake of argument!

Yes of course, Christ is the second Adam. As Adam gave “birth” to Eve the second Eve gives birth to the second Adam. Mary births the “image of God” the Son of God. But, I understand Adam and Eve as the unconscious mind. The older, primitive less individualized mind. This is the meaning of Eve’s creation. The two are separate yet undifferentiated. The mind is still submerged in the body. The humanity of Eve is yet covered in mud. She is indistinct from her source, the dust which is Adam.

Mother Mary subsumes the unconscious Adam and raises him, not to the consciousness of Joseph, but to the superconsciousness of Jesus. This is the true miracle of the incarnation. The “Image of God” has been transformed into God himself. Adam, denied eternal life by banishment from the presence of God has been redeemed by Mother Eve who births him into eternity as The Christ. God is the void which can not be said to act. Each act of God comes to nothing. His creation always finds the way around his efforts to restrict it. Unconsciousness will be consciousness will be superconsciousness. Mother Eve will always defeat God the Father.

Ah, the Dear Magdalene. Ah, She of the Temple. She of the Tower. She of the High Places. Ah she rah. Asherah. Heavenly Virgin. Queen of Heaven. Mother of God. How ancient are her devotions, how many her devotees, how devout her followers. Mother Eve comes to us in many guises. Hers is the throne of self, the dominion of awareness, the sovereignty of being. It is her pleasure to make us truly human. She is the essence, the essential being. In her we find our purpose and our meaning for she is both and all else besides. It is through her that our first thoughts rose. She brought us to awareness of self and through her we arrive at the oneness of self.

Mary Magdalene births each of us as children of God and so births God into his creation. Indeed were she not to birth God there could be no creation and where there is no creation there is no God. The Magdalene is the source, the beginning, the fountain from which the Divine Ocean flows. To drown in that ocean is to rest near the heart of Mother God.

Yes, poor Joseph. Poor Joseph who thinks it is all about him. Poor Ego who thinks. But Mary will not be taken in. Mary will not be taken. And poor confused Joseph disappears into his own “son”. Supercosciousness absorbs consciousness and so Joseph vanishes, submerged into Jesus. The Father becomes the Son and the son consumes the father.

Maiden, Mother, Crone. The truth being that Goddess has only been poorly disguised by the church which could never rid itself of her completely. So pregnant with her imagery were the political, social, and familial institutions of the first centuries C.E. that the church found it easier to distort and warp her than to banish her. Mother Eve still lives in the Virgin Mary and in Mary Magdalene. This the church can’t keep from those of us who have learned to recognize her. Mother God has yet to reckon with Father God’s church.

Yes, yes, the midst, the middle, the in between, the not this or that nor here nor there nor in or out or up or down. Betwixt. The boundaries contain the powers. Stand in between and feel them. Jesus is magi is wise is image is magic. I’m surprised Amos that you know so much about the occult arts. Or did you not know that you knew. And now we know why Mary was both virgin and whore for what is two things contains it’s own boundary. Mary is power. Mary gives birth to magic.

The old ego hangs on the cross and cries out to itself “why have you forsaken me?”

And the serpent says “If only you had listened. I said thou shalt not surely die.”

And Joseph begs for the body of Adam and tenderly carries it away as if it still had some power. But it is no longer between worlds. The magic is gone.

And Mary never went to the tomb. She knew he was not there.

JT

Ted Hoffman

(virgin) Mary represents the fertile earth. God fecundates this earth to bring forth mankind (the son/the annunaki). This is virgin conception (because there was no sex): (the sky) God "rained" sperms on virgin earth as she opened wide.
This earth that brings forth mankind is the prostitute Magdalene. She is the prostitute that Gilgamesh's friend Enkidu rapes for seven nights in the SUmerian Epic of Gilgamesh. Seven nights like the seven days of creation.

After God (Anu) fell on earth and impregnated the earth, he rose back, sphinx-like, to heaven.
Mankind (the black-headed ones) came forth from the earth (read Isaiah) and God remained in his abode in heaven.

This creation epic from the Egyptians, to Sumerians, to Akkadians to the Babylonians etc took on different forms and the entities were later euhemerized.

The evolution of the virgin earth over time, as seen in Virgin Earth, Sophia (in Sirach), the word (John), the son (Shepherd, Didache), Christ (John), then Jesus (the Gospels), to me is quite remarkable.

With some thorough research, it can be unravelled. The whole mystery.

Doherty has done it. What needs to be done now is link Genesis, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, the dead sea scrolls etc back to the Egyptian book of the dead, Ethiopian Kebranast, Enuma Elish etc etc. I think there is a 2000 years gap or so between them.

Amos

[





Yes it is and I take it you are completely outside your own argument.

In my view Eve gave birth to Adam and Adam took Eve to be his wife. Not only did Adam take Eve to be his wife but also Eve is the cause of his desires. She is the "salemandrine fire" (serpentine fire) that shapes and fashions the ego called Adam.

Eve is what I call the "lesser serpent" because she is a sublet of woman who is the "greater serpent." Woman strikes at the head of Eve who in her turn strikes at the heel of Adam to motivate him.

The chain of command here runs from woman through Eve to Adam. So your line should read "as Eve gave birth to the first Adam the second Eve gives birth to the second Adam" (and this is Catholic theology).

Adam and Eve are the conscious mind but they are 'unconscious' to us because we don't really know who we are. We think we are the hero [Adam] who is in charge of our own destiny.[

I agree but find your expression "the humanity of Eve is yet covered in mud" somewhat misleading because Adam is also still covered in mud and therefore doesn't know who he is and what it is that motivates him. The point here is that if we can be "beyond desire" there must be an illusory cause of our desire and Eve is just an [important] intermediary here. Woman (later called Mary) is the cause of our desire and Eve is needed to keep Mary Immaculate for the final battle in which paradise is regained.

Exactly. Mother Mary drives Adam via Eve to the state of mind called "beyond reason" (your "unconscious") and as such Mary 'leads' him to the state of mind he was at birth to give an account of himself . . . which equals the birth of Christ.

There exists a Renaissance painting wherein it is clear and obvious that on their way to Beth-le-hem Mary (the subconscious) is in charge of the donkey (the non-rational animal man) while Joseph (the conscious) is 'dragging' behind towards the birth of "superconsciousness." This painting is to be juxtaposed with the triumphant entry into the New Jerusalem where dapper Joseph is now in charge of the donkey and will ride in on two donkey's: the colt is the new (conscious) and the old nag is the subconscious united into the superconscious now fully realized.

No objection. I like the subtle distinction between "God" and "like god"(small g) to denote the fall of man as it was disguised by the slippery serpent, the bitch! (but we love her for it).

No problem and I can add many more litanies to that. She's my life and she's my all but we make a distinction here between Mary the greater serpent and Margalene her sublet that was needed to do her dirty work. It is true that Magdalene will be raised with the Coronation of Mary (understanding in the number 11 as opposed to the number 7).

Here again. Mary theotokos births the children of God. We say that in protestant theology Magdalene births the usurper of the reign of God which is Lucifer (the angel of light) and if we have Mary theotokos as our Mother we will not drown in the ocean of life but will be able to walk on it and go by it (our intuit memory will have become rational knowledge). We say that it is not good enough to be near to wisdom but we must possess it. IOW she is ours and we are not hers because mystics can still be wrong or the mind of God would not be supreme.

But it's so much fun to beat your own chest! The ego is good and it is fun to think, and to search, and to find . . . but the time may also come that our search comes to an end so we may enjoy the riches we found now raised into heaven.

Father God's church is Judaism and the Catholic church is the fulfillment of Judaism. The Catholic Church ran away with the spoils of Judaism and crowned Mary as queen to become Her seat of wisdom.

But the Catholic Church is the height of occultism so I should! Because She is ours our heaven is more colorful than any other and therefore we can overshadow all minor mythologies without fear that we lose our own identity.

Virgin and whore. And why not because She is the one who tumbles the Tower of Bable (sic) that we built during our involutionary period. I have no problem with that (I am rather proud of it) except that most people find it disgusting.

To become 'like god' and know the difference between good and evil was the best thing that ever happened to mankind for out of this dichotomy our dominion emerged. He went to bury it in the tomb that he had hewn with his own hands "as if out of rock" to indicate that to get where he arrived is not easy.

That is why in John Mary theotokos never went to the tomb. She knew that it would be empty because she was the chief cause behind it all (She and JBab). John knew this and only John knew this . . . while he wasn't even there. John is the Catholic interpretation, Matthew is Judaism, Mark is Pagan and Luke is omniscient to say that he reported as seen from both minds.

Toto

Gastrich responds. Occam's razor as proof of God?

Sven

I noticed that Jason Gastrich repeatedly claimed
and similar wordings.

I searched Sean McHugh's post, but only found this (at the beginning):

This is a premise not to use other versions of the bible?!?

What is Jason trying to do here? Cast a bad light on Sean by misrepresenting him?

acronos

Jason himself says that the tomb is outside to Old City. This site:
http://holysites.com/Jerusalem.htm
also says:
"During the lifetime of Jesus, this site was probably a disused quarry outside the city walls. After the expansion of the walls in 41-43 AD, the area came within the boundaries of Jerusalem proper..."

It sounds to me like the tomb was outside the city when Mary did her walk.

gagster

I was going to point out that Sean hadn't said anything about just using the KJV (unless he did it outside of the debate forum), but Sven beat me to that. Still, this is an interesting criticism.

Although the debate is specifically on alleged post-resurrection contradictions, the real question is is the bible errant or inerrant. These alleged contradictions are just possible examples of the bible's errancy. Unless Jason wants to argue that certain specific translations are unreliable, he needs to defend them all. Sean is free to pick whichever translation he feels best suits his argument. Jason then has to either explain why that translation is accurate, or tell us that that version is not inerrant.

Why is Jason asking this? Is he just trying to get Sean to have waste some of his 5000 words? It's pretty clear that for purposes of this debate, the resurrection itself is a miracle.

Because if it's a copy, then it's not additional testimony. If I tell you that George washington was the first President of the U.S. and I show you a book that supports my claim, is there any additional value in showing you another copy of that book? It'll support my claim too.

...Or those trying to decide whether or not a book was written by an all knowing god. Sean's point is that a book written by an all knowing god would not only not contain errors (unless he wanted it to), but it also wouldn't contain anything that looks wrong. This makes perfect sense. The all knowing god would know what language might confuse people and cause them to doubt the work's authorship, so he would avoid those problems.

What time of day, other than morning, prior to sunrise, could be referred to as "while it was still dark"? You wouldn't use that to describe a daylight period and you certainly wouldn't use the word "still" if the sun had just gone down. In fact, the word "still" implies that the sun would soon rise. Jason makes a pretty big deal out of this, but it is Jason who got it wrong, not Sean.

I'm not familiar with the "demoniacs". What is that?

This argument is just specious. The only reason we can't know what happened from reading just one account is because they don't agree with each other. That's the same reason why you listen to all witnesses to a crime. If every witness always agreed with all the others, we'd only bother to listen to one of them. So, what Jason is saying boils down to biblical testimony is no more reliable than normal, fallible human witnesses.

Furthermore, how can people not make judgments about the resurrection before they've read all the accounts? It takes time to read them and you can't read them simultaneously. You have to read one first, another second and so on. What Jason is saying is that a student of the bible should not make any judgments about what the bible says wrt the resurrection until he's read all the accounts. So, a hypothetical student, reading the entire bible, in order, might have a period of several days, or even weeks, where he's read one or two accounts of the resurrection, but cannot tell anyone what the bible says about the event without being held in contempt by Jason. This is downright absurd.

In the NIV, it says: So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between "therefore went forth (or out)" and "started" in this context? It would be rather odd to say that someone "therefore went forth", if their journey had already begun.

Is there even a conceivable contradiction that cannot be reconciled by assuming there is an omission?

Jason seems to agree that each of the stories of the resurrection, by itself, is, at least, misleading. It seems rather odd that an all knowing god would write stories in that manner. Perhaps, Jason might discuss god's motives for writing misleading stories? My guess is that we'd hear nothing more than "god works in mysterious ways".


Greg