Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

[ If Paul derived Jesus' humanity as a necessity for his role, that would offer another explanation for his famous "silences": there just wasn't anything to talk about.

Gerard Stafleu

Jesus' humanity was the cross he carried as saved sinner without having an excuse and making no apology. Paul knew this cross as he too suffered and was there.

http://faultgame.com/images/looney.wav

Chili · 04-02-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

3) Jesus has a Father, and a mortal mother, that is, a woman. Mmm... At least, He can die, then. But, what woman? Living where? Name? Mmm... Better leave this to more imaginative writers...

. . . except that Mary was immortal, came down from heaven and was Assumed into heaven. Paul knew this because Mary was his mother too.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

3) Jesus has a Father, and a mortal mother, that is, a woman. Mmm... At least, He can die, then. But, what woman? Living where? Name? Mmm... Better leave this to more imaginative writers...

. . . except that Mary was immortal, came down from heaven and was Assumed into heaven. Paul knew this because Mary was his mother too.

http://faultgame.com/images/x-filess.wav

Chili · 04-03-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Yes, I've been wondering something like that. But that does open the door to the idea that for Paul Jesus' humanity was a derived idea ("He must have been human, otherwise this savior bit wouldn't work") rather than a primary observation ("Here we have this human, hey, wait, that means he could be a savior"). If Paul derived Jesus' humanity as a necessity for his role, that would offer another explanation for his famous "silences": there just wasn't anything to talk about.

Gerard Stafleu

And then again, Paul's "silences" may very well be given by Paul's basic posture. If there was HJ then the obvious explanation is that Paul stayed silent on the words and deeds of the executed preacher because he never accepted the "authority" of the earthly Jesus, just as he he did not accept the "authority" of the church "pillars" who derived it from personal knowledge of Jesus. Jesus would have God's kingdom on earth - while in flesh - which was craziness and blasphemy to Paul, until as Doherty put it, he himself got knocked off his donkey. Then of course Paul got a spiritual view of Jesus but that changed nothing on his view of Jesus' earthly career as coming to naught ! All Jesus could do down here was suffer (like the rest of us) until he got gloriously beamed up. To Paul, all that is important about Jesus comes from the risen Lord. Point final; no more needs to be said !

Jiri

But Jiri, how can Paul get knocked of a donkey if he came riding in on a high horse? Or do you not know the difference?

No more needs to be said, sorry.

Chili · 04-03-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

3) Jesus has a Father, and a mortal mother, that is, a woman. Mmm... At least, He can die, then. But, what woman? Living where? Name? Mmm... Better leave this to more imaginative writers...

. . . except that Mary was immortal, came down from heaven and was Assumed into heaven. Paul knew this because Mary was his mother too.

Kind of like [virgin] Virgilia who came from Rome to Corioli [just outside of Rome] to be with Coriolanus. Same virgin, same woman, same Assumption.

Neat.

Chili · 04-03-2008, 08:28 AM

I have a problem with the phrase "Catholic Christianity" and see a paradox in it.

Catholics are Catholic in the same way as Jews are Jews and neither of them are Christian until they become Christian and after that are they no longer Catholic or Jew but Christian and the profound "temple ruckes" is and will always be the first response by the ex-believer now inspired to be gnostic (as Galilean or Purgatorian). . . but who is not fully gnostic until all faith has been converted into gnosis (hence the need for alchemic purging).

From this follows that the gnostic condition is the end of Catholic-ism as an -ism which therefore cannot replaced by another -ism as in Gnostic-ism.

Does that not follow?

Solo · 04-03-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

I have a problem with the phrase "Catholic Christianity" and see a paradox in it.

Catholics are Catholic in the same way as Jews are Jews and neither of them are Christian until they become Christian and after that are they no longer Catholic or Jew but Christian and the profound "temple ruckes" is and will always be the first response by the ex-believer now inspired to be gnostic (as Galilean or Purgatorian). . . but who is not fully gnostic until all faith has been converted into gnosis (hence the need for alchemic purging).

From this follows that the gnostic condition is the end of Catholic-ism as an -ism which therefore cannot replaced by another -ism as in Gnostic-ism.

Does that not follow?

Yes.

Jiri

Chili · 04-03-2008, 09:35 AM

Exactly Jiri because "it was for liberty that Christ freed us and we are to stand firm and not take upon ourselves the yoke of slavery a second time! Pay close attention to me, I Paul [said so] . . . " (Gal.1:1-4).

So who would ever defend gnosticism as an -ism except those who [still] seek justification in the law and have long since fallen from God's favor.

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

04-03-2008, 08:28 AM	#16
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I have a problem with the phrase "Catholic Christianity" and see a paradox in it. Catholics are Catholic in the same way as Jews are Jews and neither of them are Christian until they become Christian and after that are they no longer Catholic or Jew but Christian and the profound "temple ruckes" is and will always be the first response by the ex-believer now inspired to be gnostic (as Galilean or Purgatorian). . . but who is not fully gnostic until all faith has been converted into gnosis (hence the need for alchemic purging). From this follows that the gnostic condition is the end of Catholic-ism as an -ism which therefore cannot replaced by another -ism as in Gnostic-ism. Does that not follow?

04-03-2008, 09:35 AM	#18
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Exactly Jiri because "it was for liberty that Christ freed us and we are to stand firm and not take upon ourselves the yoke of slavery a second time! Pay close attention to me, I Paul [said so] . . . " (Gal.1:1-4). So who would ever defend gnosticism as an -ism except those who [still] seek justification in the law and have long since fallen from God's favor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.