J-D

You think I'm not that hard to follow? Well, it's nice of you to say so, I guess.

Chili

You must admit that it is an insult to intelligence to have a dream while sleeping on a rock and then put some oil on it to make holy. Dreamer you say? Like Matthew maybe?

Chili

It is poetic and speaks to the human heart and draws us in. I so is lyric and contains beauty but needs noetic vision to rationalize. This is where Aristotle holds that a poet can not interpret his own poems and is where mystics are not to be trusted and is where the gnostic mind comes in but not as an -ism.

J-D

I don't think you get to tell me what I must do.

Chili

But wait, they are not simple stories but they are expostions of the intricate details why Mathew's Jesus goes back to Galilee in the end where the Jesus of Luke goes to heaven.

Of course, this is not the same Jesus and is why James is the brother of Jesus as the wrong way to do it, which in essence means that in Matthew and Mark Jesus is actually doing it while in Luke and John it is done unto Jesus and so not a rational act (as the main reason why they are are opposite = highly condensed in "Repent and Believe" vs "Believe and Repent").;

To know these intricate details and to present them in these four Gospels must mean that the author of Matthew knew exactly how is was done to show exactly where and why they went wrong . . . already shown with the Recorded Lineage as opposed to Inspired Lineage in Luke where the tracing was done as the events happened to him in person and from that trail of events wrote the Gospel called Luke.

Of course Matthew knew this too or he would not have done is so 'cleverly wrong' to make that known to us. Iow the four Gospels compliment each other and the anomiles we see point directly at us, and are there for our benefit and so the chaos exists only in our mind until they compliment us.

Bottom line: there is nothing wrong with Judaism proper.

Let me add the significance of "Repent and Believe" vs "Believe and Repent" wherein the the famous "altar call" is to know before hand that you are going to 'receive,' and is why 'the call' is a tugging against the intergity you have maintained or it would not be a tugging wherein you stand with a decision to make . . . which in the end means 'get fucked or not' in the profane.

Davka

The assertion that there is such a thing as Biblical inspiration is without support.

The assertion that there is such a thing as metaphysical reality is without support.

Please stop preaching your religion.

Chili

Huh? You try to tell a church-going protestant that and see what he has in his right hand.

Then let me add that I am the person here who denies biblical inspiration as if it were a lucifer from the angel of light that does not sustain as opposed to communion first hand.

It is but it also what makes 'science exhillerating' wherein the [inspired] major through the work of human hands in the minor is confirmed in the conclusion, and so is like 'bread from heaven' as well.

So is science a religion now too? or do we practice it religiously because it proves itself to be true if we do it just right.

Chili

Not sure if I dare say this, but have you ever thought that crucifixion was a form of punishment for religious wannebe's wherein the Jewish High Priest was the prosecutor to hand him over to Pilate? and those who were smart enough 'did it all on their own' and so avoided the public spectacle that was designed only to be a deterrent, similar to the Lions event for the Romans?

Please know that witchcraft was popular as cited in Galations 3:1 "You senseless Galations, who has bewitched you?"

Chili

The fact here is that imagination is very relevant! . . . since all that exists in the imagination must necessarily be true and exist in reality as well! but maybe not in that order, such as pink elephants, or heaven after you die, while pink is real and elephants are real, and so is heaven and the fact that we will die, not once but twice, if we live beside our own self so we might know just who we are.

So the only thing wrong is context by relation and that makes one fantastic fantasy and the other iconic reality. Here are the snow-jobs that lead the [religious] experts astray: the fallacy of accident, secundum quid, ignoration elenchi, begging the question, non-necessary sign, non-cause, and many questions.

Many are called spurious enthymemes (first-order) that demand probing as if they emerged after a poor nights sleep that kept you awake all night, while only your pillow hard like a rock, and now you try to soften it with oil and sell it with an orignal shine that appeals to head-bangers like you.

I think Aristotle would agree with this in his Sophistical Refutations where the word Eristic is called to order.

Or course there are those who say "and damned be him who first cries 'hold enough' and stamp! watching their foot sink down thru stone up to the knee' to die like and iron fool, twice at once, and will have lived beside themselves their whole live, and then finally learn what love is all about.

Here a short line from Dostoevski on this idea: "My whole life I punish myself, my whole life I punish."

Chili

Rome was founded outside it's gate where the Lamb is fed by the wolf or there would be white paint in Rome itself (hint hint Stephan), that here now stands for 'revolt in action' with tits in all directions to nurse the Lamb of God to full maturity.

Noteworthy here is that charismatics are not welcome in the Church, nor were they 'in days of old' (and still today?) in the New Jerusalem (take note please), where the battle takes place in Galilee before they reach the New Jerusalem and that was the purpose of Joseph's detour there, where he was nursed by wolves, and their milk was like meat to 'him' as they are passage thumpers 'in the know' as many there have been crucified themselves just like Matthew's Jesus was, and then Mark's as well, to get it to done just right in the perfection of the Lamb of God himself (and hence my 'tits in all directions').

The bottom line here then is that Matthew and Mark are there not just to show how things go wrong, but also to feed the wolf that he may nurse 'the Lazarus' to maturity with only the great divide between them that is called par-ousia, and has been with us ever since as the final ousia, that only in the end is known as the 6th and final post resurrection appearance present in John wherein the seventh day is without darkness to remain.

To note now is that both are wolves* and so milk is converted to meat in understanding called 'realization' and thus tied down into the soul where enlightenement takes place as John was from there and is the one who must be fed, which so then is how the child becomes the father of the man in this poem below wherein the only difference is the 'timely uttering' (line 23) in 'God's time' and not in our time as 'dreamer' of better days ahead after just having had a ruff night, for example here.

The difference here is just a 'timely uttering' is what stands between them instead of a new religion on the way. So here now the reign of God did come that same generation after all and you can read about it in this poem, and please note that the 'timely uttering' of line 23 is beyond the capacity of human understanding, which can be as simple as 'abba father' but in essence means 'I love you' to life itself as the opposite to the sum total of our many words and so is beyond theology:

http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2352.html

Of course you can Wiki this to read all about it, but first note that this is how how "the child becomes the father of man."

* Read Rev.13 and notice the difference between the first beast and the second beast wherein the first beast emerged form the celestial sea while the second beast came for the 'old earth.' In this sense here are both wolves as well.