Chili

No, I am nobody and never a preacher. I write for myself and would never ask you to believe what I write.

This is metaphysics here now, and Jesus necessarily cannot be a Jew in Luke and in John, where he was born of God instead of carnal desire.

This is made known in the difference between the angel of the Lord in Joseph's dream in Matthew as compared with the Annunciation via Gabriel of God in Luke.

The dream here spells carnal desire as in John 1:13 where this difference is made known: "who were begotton not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it BUT by God (emphasis mine).

So then, if not by God it is by human desire and that is already sin and so blows a hole in aa5874's theory, and in most of what he writes here. I.e. there is a difference, and those words are there to make that known to us, and he totally ignores that.

But that was not your question here. Then you have to know who Mary is also, and that becomes a major problem for you to accept because it removes any historicity from the Gospels, except that it happened to Joseph the upright Jew-by-tradition, for whom Nazareth was that big little city of God inside his mind = all metaphysics here, and that is where Mary was from.

This event so spells the 'thief in the night' parable that you must know, and obviously is just opposite to Billy Graham's altar call event. I have nothing against Billy Grahman, but only use his name to make that difference known, wherein Billy was tugging pple to come forward as opposed to 'thief in the night'. So really, Billy ruptured their spritual hymen and fornicates ppl so he can add them on his 'list' for righteousness sake, while robbhing those pple from eternal life, or at least being the primary cause of the event.

So Mary is the Woman inside the mind of Joseph who was never banned from Eden = Upright Joseph here now, and so is sinless herself and therefore Virgin, and Perpetual in the generic among believers so it can happen to them. I.e. we each have our own Mary to encounter in life = the most enigmatic of all.

So now the whole event takes place inside the mind of Joseph, and that is not really what you wanted to hear, but is needed to justify my answer to you.

In the chain of command as per Gen 3:15 is where the woman from the TOL (later known as Mary via Elizabeth), strikes at the head of the lesser serpent, who is 'temple tramp' in the TOK, who in her turn strikes at the heel of human who there was called Adam.

Now Billy provokes the temple tramp (later known as Magdalene) by way of desire, and that is why Mary is not even part of it, who therefore is present only upon the innitiative of God, as per Mary's Canticle in Luke.

To know here is that Mary is untouchable and She will call you (impersonal) as just opposite to Mt.7-7 to 'knock and I will open' to cf. with Luke 11:9 where the 'thief in the night' preamble is made to make this known. Here again to juxtapose instead of affirm. i.e there is nothing synoptic about the NT Gosples either.


Done, ty.

Sheshbazzar

You asked for it.

Chili

Bottom line: In Luke and in John Jesus was not human and therefore also not Jew since religion pertains only to our human condition and is never from God as first cause, while in Matthew and Mark there was a human component to Jesus and so was 'conceived in sin' and hence not of God to make Mary not part of the show.

This is not a strike against Jews but is to their credit as in John Nathan came tumbling out of fig tree, naturally by way of tradition with no desire and thus with no vile in him. Nathan just was the fruit of the womb of religion = Lamb of God from a Jew through and through who will bleed for life from within, now chosen as Nazarite-by-nature, as opposite to 'out of Egypt called' in Matthew and 'camel hair John' in Mark.

The word Jesus is much to sacred to ever be spoken, lest he be provoked into action by humans below. So now the NT J-s-s is much like the OT G-d to allow him to prove himself before we run away with him. For this the Journey to Bethlehem must begin in each one of us simply because the womb of man in us is what we are after, and She will show us the stuff we are made of to the innermost depth of our own being. To this end She is also betrothed to us, wherein She is TOL and we are the outsider as TOK that must converge in the hypostatic union in us.

From the greatest poem ever on this, English, to note:

http://www.melodylane.net/ianwhitcomb/twainpoem.html

Even tho exaggerated it may be, my J-s-s notion is why a virgin birth is needed, that in it's turn makes fornication possible and so is why, how and when the sin against the HS is inforgivable then. I.e. you can only be a virgin once -- while on world wide TV we boast how we fornicate our own integrity (= virginity), as popular sport even, so that the rest of the world may know the stuff we Americans are made of, and totally ignore the 'thief in the night' advisery in Luke 11:5-13 (and a hundred others like it in the book that we treasure so much but do not understand)., tragic even, and don't ever think that Putin does not know about this.

Note here that our spiritual virginity is defended by our integrity wherein we are first and is not to be sold to the devil, but is to be consolidated in Luke 11:8 where intuit persistence is where this Jew yields to another who here is his own inner self. Jn.21:18 is a very short version of this circle in life, where the 'another' is the personal encounter in this.

aa5874

It is an extremely simple matter to deduce that all Canonised writings are AFTER the short gMark by showing that the Later Gospels and Epistles are far more theologically advanced.

Let us look at the Last Supper of Jesus in the short gMark and it will be seen that the author did NOT know that there was a Ritual of the Eucharist and did NOT know that the Ritual of Eucharist was carried out in the memory of Jesus for the shedding of his blood for remission of Sins for all mankind.

Sinaiticus gMark14 The author of gMatthew knew that the drink in the Last Supper represented the Blood that was shed for Remission of Sins.

Matthew 26 The author of the short gMark did NOT know that the Last Supper was practised as a Ritual.

It was the author of gLuke who knew that the Last Supper was a Ritual carried out in memory of Jesus.

Luke 221. The author of the short gMark did NOT know that Jesus shed his blood for Remission of Sins.

2. The author of the short gMark did NOT know that the Last Supper was a Ritual in memory of Jesus.

What does the author of the Pauline letters know???

The Pauline writer KNOWS that Jesus Gave himself for the Sins of mankind and that the Last Supper was a Ritual in the Memory of Jesus.

The Pauline writer KNOWS the Later Gospels or the Later Gospel authors know the Pauline letters.

The author of the short gMark does NOT know the Pauline letters and does NOT know gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

1 Corinthians 11:24 KJV The Pauline writings are far more theologically advanced than the short gMark.

The Pauline writings were composed when the Jesus cult was established and the Ritual of the Eucharist was practised.

The author of the short gMark knew NOTHING of the Ritual of Eucharist in memory of Jesus and NOTHING of the Remission of Sins by Jesus as a Sacrificial Lamb.

The short gMark is the earliest writing in the ENTIRE Canon including the Pauline letters.

Tommy

What then of Mark 10:45? - "for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” How can "give his life as a ransom" be interpreted other than as a sacrafice to secure redemption (of an elect if not of everyone)? The payment inherent in a ransom sounds as if it should be more costly than merely offering baptisms with the Holy Spirit. The subsequent freedom from captivity it secures would need to be significant; what other captivities could the ransom be referring to other than damnation?

Chili

The elect here is not the universal but his own, as the many others who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

The tragedy here is that this Joseph of Arimathea was a distinguished member of the Sanhedran, as another one who looked forward the the reign of God to add fame to his name, and that is just not how it works.

wordy

I hope you are right and it does look logical to me.
But what now when we agree on this. What are we
to make of it? It supports that an evolution has happen.
they start with a rudimentary seed and then grow all kinds
of extra features and faith in added ideas what it means.

Maybe the political pressure or opportunities became actual to them.
They saw possibilities and took them?

This reminds me how Atheism Plus suddenly arise and get known.
Them too saw a possibility and took it. A kind of political take over.

Maybe them did the same there and then way back in time.
A niche that they could make their own and it worked.
That version became the dominating one.

Chili

Forget it, he's got mankind mixed up with the world, as in your world is your world and my world is mine and so Jesus died for the sins of his world and not only told us but showed us how to die to our own = follow me and drink of the cup that I drank.

Tommy

"His own"?, "many others who had come up with him to Jerusalem"?. Do you mean his followers prior, and only prior, to his death? If so, how can you know this?

Chili

They were all kin-folks who had an interest in it, and were in full assembly at the incense hour in the prayer of Zechariah.

For liberty to be real to the innermost depth of his own being they would have an interest in it, and so is however much of the 1000 year reign is present, will be what his new age will be.

This kind of shoots a hole in Shirley MacLean who might encounter a chimp on the way down, but she in not part of it here.

So then in my theory on this, it is why some of those ancients were old, such as Methuselah and others. And not just the ancients, but is kind of universal in literature as well (but don't ask me for numbers and dates).

Remember here that freedom is not from civil duties, but from our own determinate force, which is soul driven and therefore liberty if found inside our own soul.

The proper phrase here is not the salvation of the soul, but the salvation of the outsider in his own soul, who so will move into the upper room where life itself is known as TOL, which then is where the woman is in charge, and she was called Elizabeth in Luke.

Never mind Mary here as she takes another leap, but is real nonetheless and more charming as well (white with a blue streak on her and it shows).