Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sign Related · 03-26-2009, 02:11 PM

"Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

What is in bold has no written exponding upon (or into) by the rest of, both, the chapter of passage and the whole Gospel of Luke book. To this day, "it" and "Son" both have no exponding onto (or into) an exact implication.

The "onto" aspect should have a clear appearence to. The "into" aspect should have detail of the inner makings and how such works.

Just maybe the words are supposed to be removed. Or, maybe the words are supposed to be implying a whole encompassment by "it" and a whole referrence by "Son." Note even how the words "of man" may imply an already of each man like a tag to refer to.

So what to make of "it" and "Son"?

Sign Related · 03-26-2009, 02:52 PM

Recall the watercolor drawings said to be by Nostradamus? One of the drawings is of a man with long hair going onto (and splitting into) a blank open book. The drawing suggests a whole referrence, by how the whole page parts, shown of the open book, are both blank. The whole tag (to refer) thing of man. Man? Any or every. Man? In basic or in specific or in general. Man? A position to work.

IamJoseph · 03-28-2009, 12:24 AM

Missing in the Gospel:

The greatest defense of a people for their faith in all recorded history. And it occured under the noses of the Gospelians. Rome lost - Israel won. The Gospels constituted a lie-by-omission.

03-26-2009, 02:11 PM	#1
Sign Related Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Detroit Posts: 780	Missing in the Gospel of Luke "Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." What is in bold has no written exponding upon (or into) by the rest of, both, the chapter of passage and the whole Gospel of Luke book. To this day, "it" and "Son" both have no exponding onto (or into) an exact implication. The "onto" aspect should have a clear appearence to. The "into" aspect should have detail of the inner makings and how such works. Just maybe the words are supposed to be removed. Or, maybe the words are supposed to be implying a whole encompassment by "it" and a whole referrence by "Son." Note even how the words "of man" may imply an already of each man like a tag to refer to. So what to make of "it" and "Son"?

03-26-2009, 02:52 PM	#2
Sign Related Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Detroit Posts: 780	Maybe one may apply the following to the words... Recall the watercolor drawings said to be by Nostradamus? One of the drawings is of a man with long hair going onto (and splitting into) a blank open book. The drawing suggests a whole referrence, by how the whole page parts, shown of the open book, are both blank. The whole tag (to refer) thing of man. Man? Any or every. Man? In basic or in specific or in general. Man? A position to work.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2009, 12:24 AM	#3
IamJoseph Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: AUSTRALIA Posts: 2,265	Missing in the Gospel: The greatest defense of a people for their faith in all recorded history. And it occured under the noses of the Gospelians. Rome lost - Israel won. The Gospels constituted a lie-by-omission.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.