Chili

Neither because there are no Churches in the New Jerusalem. The Revelation is a Paradise story (the Gosples were Purgatory) wherein the difference between a divine comedy and a not-so-divine-tragedy is explained.

The HS is not to be found in Revelation because it is redundant in heaven. The HS was, after all, send by the woman (our Mary) who is recognized, elevated and praised in this final end that should really be the destiny of a Christan life.

Chris Weimer

Chili - you make no sense.

Chili

:rolling:

So what do you think we need the HS for when we are one with God and all has been made clear?

So why do you think we should go to church and be counted among sinners when we are in heaven? Note that faithers are doubters and doubters are sinners and therefore there is no faith to be found in heaven or the slippery slope would allow doubters in heaven.

Chili

I would say so, but I think that they are intricately interwoven to present this new composite picture that concludes the New Testament. I would call John the Catholic gospel wherein the other gospels come to rest in a new way of understanding the concept of salvation. In my view the gospels take us from religious Judaism in Matthew, past the rational perspective of Mark, through the more perceptive vison in Luke to the eidetic vision in John and on towards the noetic vision in the final Revelation. In this sense do they all compliment each other and we really cannot arrive at John without its precursers that illuminate John.

A good example here is that the Wedding at Cana is where his genealogy was revealed to him as reported by Luke just after he was 'filled' with the HS which is to be juxtaposed with Matthew where it was taken from a record along the father instead of the Son-of the father in Luke. Matthew begins with David while Luke goes past David to the son of Adam to the son of God to show that it is to be a new religion that is inspired by God. Of course Mark is not part of this and cannot report on it for that same reason.

Next, the temptation in the desert comes after Jesus, who was full of the HS while at the Wedding, returned to reason (so to speak) and then is tempted to use this newfound insight to gain worldly richess etc.

So what I am trying to say is that the four gosples compliment each other in their differences and therefore I wonder if they are not written by the same author who know exactly where to 'fit in what' to make it this interwoven tapistry so densified.

But that's just my opinion.

Chris Weimer

I'm surprised spin hasn't commented on this yet...

Except Matthew was anti-Jewish, Luke told everyone he was using someone elses accounts of the event, and Mark doesn't even contain the "going up in the clouds" and John is clearly hellenic.

Chili

Matthew was the rational Jewish perspective which may have been anti-Jewish if Judaism is to be annihilated in Purgatory (the gospels). Mark was the rational pagan perspective, Luke was the non-rational Jewish perspective and John was the consolation of these three. But that's just my opinion and I give you this without really having studied the gospels.

Let me make this clear with the Annunciation which came across as a dream in the conscious mind of Joseph that was prompted by an angel of the Lord as reported by Matthew. To Luke this message was by an angel from God (first cause instead of second cause from Lord God) to Mary who was held captive by the integrity of "upright Joseph" in his own Tree of Life (or subconscious mind) from where Luke is reporting. If you say that Luke is using someone elses account it is because Luke is reporting from the subconscious mind and there maybe all except the Annunciation occured at some distance from him.

Lets go further to where Matthew reported that only Mary and Jesus were present in the stable when the magi arrived . . . and upon seeing this they entered the stable etc., to say that Joseph was without wit (naked to wit) wherefore the star illuminated the lower house of Joseph (stable). In the Nativity Scene we place a neutered ox and neuter mule to equate with the passified Adam and Eve in the conscious mind of Joseph = naked to wit.

In Luke the shepherds returned to "look in" and "admire" but they "never entered" or reason would have returned to the mind of Joseph (the shepherds were his qualities, or ousia's, that made him worthy). When the shepherds looked in they saw Joseph as an "out of body" vision because they were the strongholds of Joseph and their sheep were Joseph's earthly richess.

But that's just my opinion again.

Chili

And cweb, while you are there look at the Announcement of the Birth of John that was only given to us by Luke because it happened in the subconscious netherworld of Joseph from where Luke was writing. Do you think maybe that that is why the others were not privy to this information? Poor Joseph, bearing his all to the rest of the world without knowing what this is all about.

Chris Weimer

<sarcastic>obviously </sarcastic>

Where do you come up with this?

Chili

It's in the bible, no?

Chris Weimer

No, no, no :banghead: Not unless you show me where Mark is a pagan, Luke is irrational, Matthew is rational, and John is lumpy.

Matthew rational? What about "and his blood be on us and our children" - not mentioned elsewhere...that's rationalism? Do you really think the Jews would have said this?