Amos

Herod ruled over the subconscious mind and indicates that Joseph was 'beyond reason' and therefore gave an account of himself when rebirth occurred. Notice that later in omniscient Luke "Herod and Pilate, who had been set against each other, became friends from that day" Lk.23:12).

Who needs inspiration if you are omniscient. Don't forget that the descend of the Dove affirmed the convergence of the twain mind.

Amos

The striped sticks symolize the negative stand in the rout of creation much like a kernel of sand does when placed in an oyster shell, or what a question is when placed before an inquisitive mind.

Doctor X

Magus:

Why I should not write these things when I am away from my references.

Timothy is a late text and falls under what I consider apology for the discrepencies--as the passage you quote demonstrates. However, I have a discussion on "theopneustos" or "inspiration" and will review what it states about the Timothy quote.

Anon.

and Moby Dick represents the Republic of Ireland.

--J.D.

Amos

Yes Pilate was local and ruled over the conscious mind. Pilate represents civil obedience outside of religious law while Herod represents natural law but also outside of religious inclinations that are incarnate (intuit) upon us, such as tradition and obedience to religious laws and obligations.

keyser_soze

Beautiful! Applause! Did you hurt your leg with that leap, btw?

Quick question, both authors seem to not be aware of the other's suicide/homicide scene. Don't you think he would have mentioned the hanging part instead of just focusing on the fact that someone is lying down with their gut's exploded? Did he happen upon it a week later or something? Bodies do have a tendency to remain hanging for a while, days to weeks depending on the weight of the individual. Perhaps he just came along a few days to a few weeks later and magically guessed who the victim was? I mean, if he was there and the rope had broken during the act, then wouldn't it be more plausible if he mentioned the fact that he had hanged himself. I love apologetics, the apologist can't see how stupid he looks, and the crowd just get's a standup show.:notworthy

Doctor X

Magnus . . . Magus::

Will get it correct one of these days. . . .

Finally located my notes on inspiration.

Inspiration versus Revelation

The Hebrew Bible and early Christian literature do not hold any respect for inspiration. One does not know whether the man was inspired or crazy. The Catholic Church declares scripture inspired in the 15th Century.

Inspiration is not hearing YHWH and writing dow your interpretation. Inspiration is to be "possessed" by the god.

Places Where People Say "Inspiration":

2 Timothy 3:15-16 (2nd Century CE)

theopneustos = "god breathed." Literally: "every scripture inspired by God" rather than "all scripture is inspired by God." The distinction is critical. You have a god, in a sense, "blessing" texts rather than creating them.

There are only five other references to this word that we have found:

1. PsuedoPleutarch: Opinions of the Philosopher--most scholars say "theopneustic"

2. Reference to the river as theopneustic:--means that river is "godly."

3. Speech of Theopneustic Wisdom:

4. Abraham buried with theopnuestic herbs.

5. Jesus = Dionysius: one author trying to make this connection speaks of "theopneustic sandles!" This is basically, "divinely smelling." Clearly, Junior made sure the women who washed his feet had a proper hair conditioner [Stop that!--Ed.]

2 Timothy--which is, as I mentioned above--a late text does not refer to "inspiration" as we tend to conceive it now. Indeed, one early fundamentalist stresses the texts are revealed rather than inspired.

I have more, if you need it . . . none of my notes are theopneustic, unless you count Dionysius. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

To be inspired one must normally be in oblivion or the distinction cannot exist. So I agree that inspired messages are not to be trusted but this same cannot be said for gnostics who supposed to have the mind of God and therefore do not need have inspirations to be illuminated (eg. saints must have a halo).

This same concept is the reason why I argue that the Holy Spirit is redundant in heaven because if we have the mind of God who needs the HS? Rather we must ourselves become part of the Holy Trinity and to do that we must be the Son [of man] and have Mary as our mother to make us fully man. To add a line from Shakespeare on this, it is the reason why Volumnia "sprang not more in joy at first hearing that he was a man-child than now in first seeing that he had proved himself a man" (Coriolanus I.iii.50; to wit: Virgilia is the Virgin and Volumnia becomes the bride when Virgilia returns to Rome).

All of scripture is inspired as seen from the human perspective and this should not be interpreted as a collection of artificially induced scatter-brain messages. It is however true that Jesus gave most sermons from a "mountian top" and this suggests that he was on a spiritual high at that time. So also did his temptations occur while on a mountian top, and many of his followers were attracted while on the shoreline of the celestial waters (e.g it explains why different women were at the tomb). We must also be reminded here that Jesus was still immature and not fully Christ until he crowned Mary as his bride and so without her the mountian-tops may be the times when he was intimate with her (I hold that the gospels take place in Purgatory where Mary works from behind the scene and so "mountian-tops" are possible).

Madkins007

A. God and Satan exact opposites? No, and this is a critical aspect of understanding why this is not a contradiction. Satan was a created thing who rebeled against God and was cast from heaven- AND WHO WAS STILL UNDER GOD'S AUTHORITY as of the book of Job, where Satan could do nothing without being released or directed by God.

B. If God, in His anger, used Satan as His tool to accomplish this task (making David do the census thing)
, as He used Satan as a tool to teach Job the lessons He had in mind for Job, then there is no contradiction. It is the difference between saying that 'Joe dug a hole' and 'the shovel dug the hole'.

Madkins007

re: Discrepencies in personal accounts (ie- Judas, the Resurrection, etc.)

Please understand that I do not define either Biblical inerrancy or inspiration quite the way fundies, etc. do, but it always tickles me to see these arguements.

When the accounts agree too much, everyone complains that they obviously copied off each other (or the mythical Q)- which somehow lessens their value.

When the disagree, the arguement is that they should have agreed in detail.

The Bible can't win, apparently!

Madkins007

re: 2 Timothy 3:16...

I am amused at seeing people use comments like 2 Timothys 'all scripture is inspired by God' (3:16) as ANY proof of NT inspiration, etc. It obviously refers to the Old Testament writings, because:

a.) at the time he was writing, it was just a friendly letter from Paul to Timothy- not yet considered canonical by anyone and to claim that God inspired it because He know it WOULD be in the Bible some day changes what the passage actually means to the target audience.

b.) it is proceeded by the phrase 'you have known from childhood the sacred texts' (2Tim 3:15), and just what could THAT phrase be referring to????

This is similar to the oft-used bit about 'not adding to or subtracting from this book' in Revelations. It is SO often used to refer to changing any word in the entire Bible, but SO obviously means just messing with the Revelation itself (which is already confusing without being edited!)