Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 11-30-2011, 06:27 AM

. . . but shit is only shit because we do not want it fanning in our face or blows up in there and make us look like it.

Chili · 11-30-2011, 08:00 AM

And yes of course!!! Joseph was said to be a carpenter and a wily one as such and now let's not forget that if 'all that is has been created in sin' it goes without saying that Joseph was big sinner but an upright one as such, and therefore was a cave-hewer as an ark-builder to reach the yonder shore because you just cannot go further West while not going further away from East while going West.

I think the message here is that one must be black and stained with sin before one can realize what this sport called 'vanity' is all is all about wherein we only wear the spotless color white as a mask, while in fact we are a piece of shit darker even than Tobi's ass and not much more than that, except maybe that on our way out West we were mindful of our journey en relation to the place we left behind and there consolence find as Joseph did as upright Jew, and therefore also those words belong in Mark, but are not there! Just a foreshadow it is, but one to carry weight and so Mark just hasn't go a clue but just tells us that Jesus got zapped by an evangelist who ate nothing but wild locusts and wild honey huimself (to signify pleasure and pain as a lonely sojourenr in his own life) with the promise of heaven to follow after you get saved (likely to 'take you 'home' someday but never does and never will) and then when Jesus 'stepped up' he immediately got his hymen (sky) rent and saw 'the light' that send him on a tailspin into the desert where he became as scavenger as well (and has been singing halleluia's ever since!).

I think you guys are funny and don't you see that 'a manger' should be there to show 'cause of origination' with swaddling clothes that it may be known that East exists as the place he left behind and not just was a loner as a stranger in a foreign land but had left 'the promised land' behind and hence he had intergirity . . . wherefore then piety in children must be instilled and not be replaced by a gym to get them 'there' (nor should babies be seen in church but not relevant here now).

So that, then, is why only the Jews could see the stain in him while Pilate did not have a clue when they shouted "Crucify him, we have our own law and by that law he must be crucified to die" (material John 19:7 but not found in material Mark; cf the use of the word 'man' expressed by Pilate between Mark and Matthew where 'him' is used instead of 'man' and Luke and John where only 'man' is used as 'the man that Pilate saw' as opposed to 'Jew' or 'him', and in fact, in John 18:31 they made it clear that they (Jews) may not put anyone to death but must hand him over to the 'faculty of reason' to be put to death and so the Romans are needed to do 'their dirty work' as they were Jew in a foreign land and so with a home of their own (only for Jews) where they knew Jesus was destined in Luke and John but not in Mark and Matthew where that insight is not shown to exist to even know know the difference in destiny and hence also the difference between 'flowery piety' and a 'carousing gym' becomes relevant here.

Note that creation always is the product of a rout wherin two opposites meet in confrontation, such as in the game called bridge wherein friends play and play hard as if for keeps and like in the fancy footwork of a tango unite in sin.

Chili · 11-30-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Good luck with producing any record stating that the Gospel's were NOT written by those well known Jews identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

It is very obvious by the intricate weave between these four that they were written by Jews-in-the-know to send us scrambling for evidence now still for 2000 years since, and maybe stronger now as ever before as not just us but our entire civilization is at the verge of spiritual banckrupcy .

Chili · 11-30-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The innerrantists have a real problem on their hands with any defense of Matthew 27:51-53. as being an infallible scriptural account of a real happening.
Right now they are simply paying it lip service, in a vain attempt to hold together their claims of textual infallibility. But are far from being able to come up with any reasonable apologetic explanation able to reconcile its implications with the rest of the Bible's clear statements regarding both the timing, and the manner of the Resurrection. For example, If these 'many saints' actually rose from the dead, J-S would not be 'the firstfruits of them that slept'.(1 Cr 15:20-23) and men are NOT "appointed to die once..." (Heb 9:27)
(The texts are very confused in their presentation of this Matthean resurrection- did it take place following the earthquake on the afternoon of his death? or did it take place three days latter, and after his Resurrection? depends on which version, or how one prefers to interpret the matter.)

It is not that difficult really if you consider that Matthew's Jesus went to hell and they were touched by his example and decided to follow him as well and so the earthquake has been rumbling ever since.

Sheshbazzar · 11-30-2011, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Good luck with producing any record stating that the Gospel's were NOT written by those well known Jews identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

It is very obvious by the intricate weave between these four that they were written by Jews-in-the-know to send us scrambling for evidence now still for 2000 years since, and maybe stronger now as ever before as not just us but our entire civilization is at the verge of spiritual banckrupcy .

Exactly my point Chili.
These Jews knew that their adversaries were morally depraved and greedy for gain, and cleverly used it against them, by means of planting the seeds of a new Gentile religion, one that they were certain would grow and bear the evil fruit that would corrupt and destroy their enemies from within.

And now 'in the last days' the corruptness of the system is ever the more becoming public knowledge.
We are that generation of the children of the Gentiles who are beginning to say; "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."
(Jer 16:19) "....in the latter days you shall consider it perfectly." (Jer 23:20)

Chili · 11-30-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[Exactly my point Chili.
These Jews knew that their adversaries were morally depraved and greedy for gain, and cleverly used it against them, by means of planting the seeds of a new Gentile religion, one that they were certain would grow and bear the evil fruit that would corrupt and destroy their enemies from within.

And now 'in the last days' the corruptness of the system is ever the more becoming public knowledge.
We are that generation of the children of the Gentiles who are beginning to say; "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."
(Jer 16:19) "....in the latter days you shall consider it perfectly." (Jer 23:20)

Sure and let the price of gold and art just speak in evidence of that, while in fact the true beauty of gold and art lies in our abiility to walk away from it and never lose as foot-pillows of our own.

Chili · 12-01-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It appears that Paul introduced the good news at Corinth in much the same way - through self-interpreted psychosis

Paul had actual somatic illness in Galatia. In Corinth he was merely weak, which may mean nothing more than that he had no idea what he was going to say to the church before he opened his mouth. Plenty of preachers have been in that situation.

Quote:

The most interesting thing for me is that Paul not only did not try to hide his psychosis; he considered it an authentic manifestation of God's agency; a proof of sorts that he and his acolytes were truly sent:

2 Cr 5:13 For if we are beside ourselves(εξεστημεν=out of one's mind, insane), it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

One of the standard academic rules about reading Paul in particular is that he must be read in broad passages, not in snippets like that; though your conclusion is quite unjustifiable even from that small selection. Paul was entirely certain that there was no saner person than he in the world; and everyone else knew it, too. But Paul knew that the human propensity to describe as insanity the most rational conclusion, if it made demands beyond toleration, was very strong. He well knew that Greek thinkers called his belief folly, but he knew also that this was a defence reaction in order to obviate an open and fair discussion. And the Corinthians were welcome to call him insane, too, if they dared; it would be only to their disadvantage, because they would have to eat their words if they did that. He knew that he had answers to everyone, no matter who they were, and was the complete master of the gospel he preached. From the same letter:

'The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.' 2 Cr 10:4-6

So the Corinthians knew exactly where they stood. They could stay, and do as Paul commanded; or they could walk away, as happened to Jesus when they realised what was involved in discipleship. They could walk away, saying, "He's insane." But it would have been seen as only sour grapes.

Nicely evaluated and well presented but could you not say that Paul demonstrated that he could "be all things to all men?" and to call him somatic is just fine with me but if he could be all things to all men, can you still call him that?

Chili · 12-01-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

[According the the article cited below, "Galatians" may not have been primarily written to a specific geographic location but rather to people (primarily the lost tribes of Israel then Gentiles) residing in a spiritual state of bondage.

See page 10 of the following pdf article by Andrew Gabriel Roth entitled," RECOVERING THE ARAMAIC ORGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE LOST VISION OF THE NAZARENES

A key point on page 10 is that the word "Galatians" involves a wordplay relating to the word "galuta" which is a form of slavery.

Yes, and they were 'bewitched' even . . . as in Gal.3:1 "You senseless Galatians! Who has cast a spell over you--" . . . as if they had gone mad as bewitched and much like modern day charismatics or Christians even who should not be going to church as Christian according to Gal.5:4, which reads: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law (sin concept) have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor.

. . . and I mean really, if they want to be a follower of Jesus the first thing they must do is raise hell in the temple and leave the place to never be seen there again . . . as is that not what Jesus did too?

Chili · 12-01-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you by any chance think the words of Paul are inerrant or must be true? Do you understand that it was NOT the Church who have deduced that the Pauline writings were MANIPULATED?

The Pauline writings CANNOT be trusted since there is ZERO corroboration for any Pauline writer before the Fall of the Temple. ZERO.

Presumptions about Galatians are really worthless.

Do you think maybe that the fall of the temple had something to do with the mind of Jesus who was talking about destroying his temple and raising it back up in tree days, and then it was hinted that he was talking about his own mind? Kind of like what Golding did with the Spire when he saw that little hole in the bottom that nevertheless was the top? Which then has nothing to do with 'a temple' as this Jesus was talking about 'his temple.'

Chili · 12-01-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Paul was entirely certain that there was no saner person than he in the world; and everyone else knew it, too.

Would you care to point me to some verses from Paul, or do you you just want to have a rhetorical contest ?

Jiri

Was Paul not the Cloak of faith that Peter put on when he was defrocked of Judaism when Thomas (his twin in faith) was swayed to believe with the exclamation "My Lord AND My God?" And so with no doubt left faith cannot be conceived to exist that so rendered Peter naked, and hence did not catch anything that night . . . until Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side of his boat (read mind) and then Peter put on this 'new cloak' and dove headfirst into the celestial sea where the fish were plenty and bigger than anyone had ever seen before . . . and so untouchable Paul was, and I suppose together they moved to Rome where Peter was the seat of Paul and Paul was the pope . . . and thus the allegory goes, I would say.

Well I was not finished and let me add that if Peter was faith in realization defrocked, does that not mean that neither Peter nor Thomas were real as we like to define real, and so if Paul was the new Cloak of Peter Paul was not real either, except in the spirit of truth where they all were more real than we ever will be, or we would not be writing about them now still today.

11-30-2011, 06:27 AM	#1
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Chili split from Strange Lynch mob and other threads . . . but shit is only shit because we do not want it fanning in our face or blows up in there and make us look like it.

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

11-30-2011, 08:00 AM	#2
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	And yes of course!!! Joseph was said to be a carpenter and a wily one as such and now let's not forget that if 'all that is has been created in sin' it goes without saying that Joseph was big sinner but an upright one as such, and therefore was a cave-hewer as an ark-builder to reach the yonder shore because you just cannot go further West while not going further away from East while going West. I think the message here is that one must be black and stained with sin before one can realize what this sport called 'vanity' is all is all about wherein we only wear the spotless color white as a mask, while in fact we are a piece of shit darker even than Tobi's ass and not much more than that, except maybe that on our way out West we were mindful of our journey en relation to the place we left behind and there consolence find as Joseph did as upright Jew, and therefore also those words belong in Mark, but are not there! Just a foreshadow it is, but one to carry weight and so Mark just hasn't go a clue but just tells us that Jesus got zapped by an evangelist who ate nothing but wild locusts and wild honey huimself (to signify pleasure and pain as a lonely sojourenr in his own life) with the promise of heaven to follow after you get saved (likely to 'take you 'home' someday but never does and never will) and then when Jesus 'stepped up' he immediately got his hymen (sky) rent and saw 'the light' that send him on a tailspin into the desert where he became as scavenger as well (and has been singing halleluia's ever since!). I think you guys are funny and don't you see that 'a manger' should be there to show 'cause of origination' with swaddling clothes that it may be known that East exists as the place he left behind and not just was a loner as a stranger in a foreign land but had left 'the promised land' behind and hence he had intergirity . . . wherefore then piety in children must be instilled and not be replaced by a gym to get them 'there' (nor should babies be seen in church but not relevant here now). So that, then, is why only the Jews could see the stain in him while Pilate did not have a clue when they shouted "Crucify him, we have our own law and by that law he must be crucified to die" (material John 19:7 but not found in material Mark; cf the use of the word 'man' expressed by Pilate between Mark and Matthew where 'him' is used instead of 'man' and Luke and John where only 'man' is used as 'the man that Pilate saw' as opposed to 'Jew' or 'him', and in fact, in John 18:31 they made it clear that they (Jews) may not put anyone to death but must hand him over to the 'faculty of reason' to be put to death and so the Romans are needed to do 'their dirty work' as they were Jew in a foreign land and so with a home of their own (only for Jews) where they knew Jesus was destined in Luke and John but not in Mark and Matthew where that insight is not shown to exist to even know know the difference in destiny and hence also the difference between 'flowery piety' and a 'carousing gym' becomes relevant here. Note that creation always is the product of a rout wherin two opposites meet in confrontation, such as in the game called bridge wherein friends play and play hard as if for keeps and like in the fancy footwork of a tango unite in sin.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.