Chili

. . . and don't let that PhD fool you into thinking otherwise.

His problem here is that he believes in the physical crucifixion and must deny the resurrection. That is like having one leg in heaven (born again) and one leg on earth (sinner) which keeps him from being raised and is forced to worship the ideal of resurrection only.

Typical second beast of Revelation stuff.

Jehanne

that there are no mythological elements to the New Testament whatsoever; that is, that every "miracle" recorded in the Gospels is to be taken as literal historical fact? In particular, please cite Professor Sheehan’s “biggest blunder� from the article and let’s go from there.

Chili

It is all myth and I am not interested in defending any of it except where Jesus said my body is real food and my blood is real drink. Notice that here the words "real" indicate that this is not myth but real and therefore the rest is all myth.

The problem is that myth is real but not in the physical sense that you may be thinking of.

Chili

It is doubtful that Peter is called Rock if in the next passage Jesus calls him satan. In my view it was the keen insight of Peter that was the rock and 'the Peter' here must be defrocked since faith is the enemy in Galilee where faith must be brought to understanding. Sure, call doubt the enemy but doubt is the twin of faith. Notice the comment Jesus made "nobody has told you this but my father in heaven" and that made Peter's insight worthy to be the rock for the church to be built on.

Mark is just a faithless transition Gospel between the Judaism of Matthew and the pending Catholicism of John for which Peter was needed to graft the new church into the trunk of Judaism.

Peter was defrocked when all doubt was removed (with Thomas his twin) and the loyalty of Peter was later used when Peter put on his cloak of faith once again and dove head-first into the celestial sea to make it an inspired religion. Peter's identity was faith and this once again is more evidence that the entire gospels are myth . . . but real nonetheless.

Seeker2000

What is this supposed to mean?
Alternate identity? Where does this come from?
And why should it make a difference if someone only has one half of his brain?

Chili

Notice the "if." We are divided in our mind and "if" they took one half of this division away, the other half will not know that it is gone because it is not there to remind that he is divided in his his mind.

Seeker2000

So we have two identities because we have two brain halves and we have two souls, but only the "right" one can go to heaven? Or is the soul changed when one half of the brain is removed? Sorry, but this is stupid.

Chili

No, we have only one soul and only the left one can go to heaven which is the right one. To get there the left one must be 'crucified,' shall we say (since we are familiar with the image), after its richess have been removed for safe keeping to be raised on the other side called the 'upper room.' That's biblical.

post tenebras lux

Sounds good to me.

If it's only the lefthanded who get to go to heaven, then heaven might not be such a bad place after all.

A little chaotic and disorganised, sure. But it was threat of eternal calm and order that was putting me off the whole gig.

Thanks to Chili for saying that us southpaws are pre-blessed.

For all of you who are boring and righthanded, may I suggest a quick stroke or two could reap great benefits for your eternal soul.

Luxie :wave:

Chili

I am a southpaw myself and would slant my argument in my own favor.

Forgot to add Luxie that I hope you are not a female or I would have bad news for you.