Chili

Sure, but that would not make then compliment each other. It just shows, as I suggested, that the writer of Matthew knew exactly where to put the error so they can be transformed into compliments.

This would be in the same way that transubstantiation does not change the bread or wine, but our mind is where the change is to be made so that we will see.

Chili

Penance for the remission of sins is not the same as repentance and remission

Penance is towards forgivenes and that does not equal remission, and in fact has just to opposite effect.

Chili

All smoke DC and in Matthew Mary and Joseph never did get married because his Jesus was not divine and he was only called the Christ because he actually was not.

This is hypostatic union stuff and Matthew's Jesus was just a wannebe as imposter who was from his mother's womb untimely ripped, which is the greatest curse on earth and popular sport in America and always was.

To see this check out Matt. 27:64 where the final imposter is introduced by the Chief priests who were concerned about this, to drop a hint to the reader of the satire they are reading.

Moreso even in that Christ was born and they called him Jesus and not Jeus was born and they called him Christ, who never did become the Christ because a Christ goes to Jerusalem and does not go back to Galilee.

It is a satire written for the half-baked so called Christians who worship Jesus instead Mary who got raped here and is left behind. An do you not see how gory Senecan tragedies are?

Chili

They should be very important because they are like a bomb that should blow up in their face as so called Christian.

Chili

The descend of the dove in Luke testifies that Luke knew Mary, that I called "came to roost and never fly the coop again." You must see this as never again have to pray the HS down from heaven (like they do on evangelistic rallies, for example)*, as he is now 'within you' and not just 'with you,' and therefore the descend of the dove and the rant that followed as given.

Her liberation from Nazareth is by appearance in Bethlehem to give birth to the son makes it know that she is mediatrix of the flow from Elizabeth to the son in the mind of Joseph to whom Christ was born.

So whereas Elizabeth was the 'woman in charge of destiny' as shown with her seclusion for 5 months in retrieve (Luke 1:24), Elizabeth now is the manger in Luke where Mary is of 'this age' to so enter the conscious mind of Joseph the Jew.

So we are talking about the details of 'awakening' here using the imagery given so we might understand, just as the shepherds who looked in and understood when they saw what was foreshadowed to them.

The foreshadow to the shepherds is to us by indoctrination that must bear witness to truth and so be iconic and not fantasic that only brings sophistry about.

Let me take you to Genesis 3:15 where the prior chain of command is defined that makes us 'determinate' creatures, just with a bloated chest, I suppose, to think that we have free will and do what we want.

Once you have this concept it is easy to see why Elizabeth gave up her posted command and let Lord God be the Immanent Will in the mind of Joseph the Jew so that the naked animal man can do its own thing.

In essence, we are parking our faculty of reason for this to happen, at least for the time being, and so Joseph is not a Jew in command here (and hence the image of the naked animal man that Plato called genus for which a son is needed also for them = our own identity as man prior to intelligence that enslaved us to our persona as human instead).

In Gen.3:15 the woman [as greater serpent] strikes at the head of the lesser serpent that we call Eve who in her turn strikes at the heel of the man as human being. This motion contains a detour to engage conscious awareness via the senses so we will consiously know what is good and what is bad. This is norrmal and is good, and is good for us so we can enjoy the pleasures of life with emotion and valor as quality in life as it is. And so while it is called the fall of man, it is native to all sentient beings for their own good so that they can compete to survive in a world of their own.

However, it also creates opposites since pleasure cannot be conceived to exist without pain in a world that is illusive as outsider to our own self. To reverse this position a return to Eden is needed that here is called rebirth of which the particular in the mind of Joseph is shown in detail.

For this to be possible a feeling of estrangement is needed that is permanent . . . also not of our own choice, naturally not, to give essence to Immanence (oops!) under God as first casue and so the engagement of Gabriel is called for. For this to happen 'the stanger' must be seduced so this detour can be eliminated and man can commune directly with the woman above who presides over the TOL without enmity henceforth (notice here that herod and Pilate became friends in Luke to show this, 23:12).

So the chain of command ran from the woman-to-Eve-to-Adam as the outsider where he was the illusion created when the eyes of the TOK were openend and so now he could see for himself as outsider to the TOL (left and right brain).

Effectively it ran from Elizabeth to Magdalena to Joseph while Mary was held captive by the integrity of Joseph via the valor of Magdalene** who was Valeria in Coriolanus while Virgilia did her work "in good faith" while in Rome (I.iii.50).

So we have Elizabeth to Magdalena to Joseph as Jew, and we want Elizabeth directly to Joseph as man in the image of God. For this Magdalene becomes redundant as templetramp in the mind of Joseph as Jew, who is later to be celebrated as the valliance of Casca that was spured by the valor of Valeria who therefore "returned to Rome" when all was completed and so she was done forever, amen. (V.v.). Note here that since Eve was the illusion without existence of being she will remain as the shine of the son while in the dark when the halo is seen.*** Shakespeare send Valeria back to Rome to say: for Catholics only, daringly, in the days that he wrote and was decorated for it to boot.

The Jew in Joseph was crucified under the name of Jesus, in him, though him and with him, to say only that he was first and was last, but goes nonetheless as the sacrifial lamb of religion that was only the agent to get the job done in the dark while in the celestial light from where only this can be done, as the light of common day must go so it will not be a deceiver no more (i.e. Rev.22:5 where also the sea is no longer 21:1, 22, 23), and so finally, the whore of Babylon is the transmission to built the great city of God, of which Coronation is proof of hypostatic union in force.

* This activity itself proves them guilty as imposters, in the same way as hope does for a Christian: what are you hoping for if you already are? Amplified this means that a Christians does not pray as that for him is a thing of the past.

** She is the cause of desire and so the queen of delusion itself where also delerium is know that gives shine to the sun as the illusion we see outside of Eden. Obviously, with the resign of Elizabeth Magdalene was put on idle that is made known by the darkness that prevailed.

*** The idea of halo is from Plato where the glow of an artist is the light he followed inside the Cave to excell in the insight he has in this art as artisan himself. However, Plato said, as artisan he is not himself, but just put a shine on the quality he has (an ousia or form). Then, with 12 such shines on him a confusion must follow that prompts the question: "who am I that all there shines can be on me?" From this an [internal] inquest must follow to get to the bottom of this, and there not another shine will find but the final Form he will find that he called parousia, as the naked animal man now as a 'full meal' in itself and not just 'the cake' as a shine upon him.

I think Plato used this image as the vision of the Senior in the 5th interpretation that is beyond the scope of things as they are in nature itself, where so transcendence of human understanding is made.

And so now these 12 shepherds cause a confusion in his mind as if they were out herding sheep on a midwinter night and when the genus was revealed to him when the shepherds looked in and understood whence that came, how they came about, and what brought this persistent melancholy to him, and here then Luke gives Elizabeth the blame for this Grand Inquisition event that delivered the Halo to him.

And of course, Elizabeth should get the blame that is known to us as 'faith in the heart' as opposite to "confess and believe" as a command made by camelhair John in the Gospel of Mark.

A final observation can be made now with Magdalene permanently designated to be the Halo of Man, it is Mary who becomes his wisdom and light of his life by day and by night, for whom so dreaming is a thing of the past. Hence: It is an evil age when old men have dreams.

Chili

How dare you argue with his lineage if it was direct from God, is probably what he would say. No record needed, and besides, they all showed up at his Cana event, and so he would know and is telling and is not asking you.

Matthew never had a hypostatic celebration but had a massacre to deal with and fled to Egypt on account of that. So if anybody would be wrong it would be him as he must have a stranger in there that bastardized the child for him.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypostasis

Chili

All smoke is what you see, but it is in Golding's "Spire" that he was building and nobody in England knows where it is, and are still looking for it as a gnaw to their inners.

Bottom first page Chapter Six.

"For the tower was to rise another eighty feet in another chamber, with more lights, more hosanning heads, more platforms and ladders, so that the mind winced to think of it: winced at any rate up here, where solidity balanced in midair among the birds, held it's breath over a diminishing series of squares with a round hole at the bottom which nevertheless was the top". . . and fell down thence.

Duvduv

Does this explain why some Hebrew names listed in the GLuke genealogy are distorted and others are not??

Chili

You would have to ask Joseph that as he is the one who encountered his own lineage to the innermost depth of his being. I call it smoke, but if you think that there is some value in it that would be what theology is about. I just like poetry and theology is more like an enemy for me.

In essence, Joseph here celebrated his own awakening wherein he exposed his own thousand year reign, as did Hardy (but not Hopkins), and Golding and Shakespeare, and all those many Russian greats did the same, who so then came to be up to one thousand years old.

Most explicit here in detail is Zamjatin's "WE" for whom: "I, we four, are a powerful torment," and those were the same characters that Golding used in "The Spire."

Chili

Because the parthenocarpic seed in the womb of Joseph (sic) was born here that comes across as re-born to him . . . because John said so, I suppose, that got the wild fire going that Matthew was all about. To this end Luke set the record straight and put an end to the sham that it was.

I write this not to redicule Matthew as he does a good job to make this known.

And Yes, God was the father of Jesus, but Jesus was just a name give to the movement inside the mind of Joseph to whom the Son of Man was born, Yes, I have no problem with the name Son of Man as finally this same Son of Man must be Man as God in person on earth without attachments and for this he must be both God and Lord God with a mind of his own. In other words, "he has no equal, he is God" to use the words of Gogol in "Dead Souls."

The difference between Matthew's "Son of Man" and Luke's "Son of God" is the imputes of religion during the infancy period as the cradle to nourish the 'child' for about ten days, I would say, and not walk away from the 'horror' after a midnight, midwinter, midlife, ordeal that is darker than Africa could ever be, which then is what the origin of John the baptist is all about, who later is introduced as the real son at the foot of the cross in which Jesus died.*

To 'make flat' the world in the mind of Joseph prior to this event is important, obviously, I'd say, by the elaboration of the origin of JohnB that is missing in Matthew, and who was depicted as a scavenger in Mark to so brings a 'gutter' child about as juxtaposed with 'virtue' being a gift of God in swaddling clothes bound to make Luke's infancy gifted, but not in Matthew, to note. It so is that piety in children is a quality instilled by the mother (while the men drink beer outside still).

To your question, get rid of the idea that Jesus was the son of God first, and then add that the infancy of so called Jesus lasted only 10 days till the Magi arrived, who's gifts were faith, hope and charity in higher form by way of insight, wherein the end was not only seen, but also the way to get back to Eden was made known to him; now with the woman first person behind him, still pulling the strings in his life.**


* The defintion of 'real' changes here from temporal to eternal.

** The bypass of Eve in the seclusion of Elizabeth with no more incense hour by Zecharaih = religion in permanent park. So the encounter here was Jesus as the fiery sword that he represents, and the cherib(im) stationed there was the woman within, as shown in Gen.3:24. And you can read more about her here:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=561356

Notice that Cho-fu-sa is the gate to Eden where the encounter with her is made, and the narrows of Kiang is the narrow Gate.

Oh, and she wants to know that you are coming as she is the only way, that now means that Jesus is just the fire to be tamed by the mixing of water and fire, I suppose, that no longer is needed when alchemy begins.

And also held captive there . . . but the river of life was hers as per Gen 3:15 where she is in charge as the most enigmatic within humans while they are outside of Eden.

If you are coming down through the narrows of the river Kiang,
Please let me know beforehand,
And I will come out to meet you,
As far as Cho-fu-Sa.