Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 01-25-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

WHERE is John the material twin of Luke?

Only in Chili's surrealistic psycho-theology.

You might notice that none of the regulars engage with Chili.

Yeah, I noticed. Thanks.

Sheshbazzar · 01-25-2012, 07:07 PM

I love my 'ol friend Chili.....
only like the Chili pepper, a little Chili goes a long way, and is an acquired taste and tolerance that is best ingested in small amounts.
Too much Chili can be a pain, but the pot would certainly be lacking something without it.

Chili · 01-25-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Yes but John is the material twin of Luke to make that known.

WHERE is John the material twin of Luke?

All over starting with the infancy . . .

Chili · 01-25-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I love my 'ol friend Chili.....
only like the Chili pepper, a little Chili goes a long way, and is an acquired taste and tolerance that is best ingested in small amounts.
Too much Chili can be a pain, but the pot would certainly be lacking something without it.

Neet, and a little romance goes a long way, ty my friend, and I agree that this was a little on the hyper side.

Chili · 01-25-2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

He was, at least in gJohn.

John 19

The sudden flow of blood and water shows he was still ALIVE.

And that was Matthews problem who so never died.

It was Mark and Luke's problem as well. Tertullian in Against Praxeas 30 decided that he commended his spirit and so willed himself to death. Yet skirts so close to what Catholics would call heresy, in that Jesus had not really died. To get around this, Tert says Jesus actually died, but the Spirit never left the body. Confused? I am too; Tertullian makes NO SENSE.

Well Mark for sure but not Luke because he is the efficient cause of John, and I do not know what Tertellian wrote and really does not matter to me either.

Oh and no, Luke's Jesus said exactly what James Joyce said before he went to heaven on his last page of his "Portait" that reads: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead." And note that he would rise again on May 1 when all new life begins, and had his 40 day count-down in Gethsemay showing that he would.

steve_bnk · 01-25-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The gospels are written in fictional form of the day. It actually reduces to an action adventure story as we would frame it today.

It is a tradegdy with a surprise ending. Image an ancient literate reader I tarting on page one not knowing anything about the story.

Sure and that depends on how far you want to strech the meaning 'fiction' as a death must take place, and for this both water and blood must be let to show a 'total transformation' from both the TOL and the TOK, and hence the piercing from the right to deflate the cavity called 'chest' wherein 'large hearts' are heroes. It so is that all the senses are pierced and therefore he must die to include those that are native to man and to which 'the human condition' is an a priori slave.

Rembrandt painted "A Slaughtered Ox" that he equated with the crucifixion without the word Jesus attached to it. This makes people wonder why he attached that meaning to it and people are still wondering about that today and will always drag Jesus into their argument, while all that means is that even bulls get crucified to render them ox for the rest of their life . . . lest they go chasing girls in a rubber dingy and cannot cross the great divide. Moreover they will not even sniff to check it out, and maybe that is what Rembrandt had in mind. Allegory, maybe so, but with no marriage in heaven and John left for Patmos to write his Revelation it would not surprise me that those [blessed] closards in Paris are the true Christians of today . . . and who wants to be one of those and by now cold is beginning to look a whole lot better.

http://www.artinthepicture.com/paint...laughtered-Ox/

And of course the ''chief priests' knew about this or they would not have cautioned Pilate in Matthew . . . and then the very response by Pilate to prevent the early death was the reason that he died so soon, but only to the TOL and not the incarnate inclination and so no piercing was done and Jesus in response said: "first you beat me up and now look what you did to me!"

You are over analyzing, I doubt the writers were that complex. Pgagmatically it is rather inconvienient to have the deity hanging around on Earth, cramps the style of the faithful.

The gospels were promotional literature to sell the mesage, certainly embellished.

sotto voce · 01-26-2012, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Point #4 I think is a good one. They don't break his legs because they think he is dead and they spear him to make sure he is dead?

That's not in the text.

And yet it seems to be the best explanation.

The most convenient for skepticism, anyway.

Doug Shaver · 01-26-2012, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

What is the evidence for or against a Roman crucifixion of Jesus?

It is well documented that, starting sometime during the second century, some Christians believed that Jesus was crucified by Roman authorities. That is all the evidence for it.

There is no hint of such a belief in Christian writings known to have originated during the first century. That is the evidence against it.

sotto voce · 01-26-2012, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

What is the evidence for or against a Roman crucifixion of Jesus?

It is well documented that, starting sometime during the second century, some Christians believed that Jesus was crucified by Roman authorities. That is all the evidence for it.

There is no hint of such a belief in Christian writings known to have originated during the first century. That is the evidence against it.

Writings that do not evince belief in the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be Christian.

mrsonic · 01-26-2012, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Writings that do not evince belief in the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be Christian.

so you admit that their was doubt over the crucifixion?

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

01-25-2012, 07:07 PM	#52
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I love my 'ol friend Chili..... only like the Chili pepper, a little Chili goes a long way, and is an acquired taste and tolerance that is best ingested in small amounts. Too much Chili can be a pain, but the pot would certainly be lacking something without it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.