LeftCoast

Even worse, if he could do it for one, why not just remove OS from everyone and eliminate the need for the whole substitutive sacrifice silliness?

Asha'man

Hello No Quarter, and welcome to the II!

Pretty good for a first post. I like your imagery, but I don’t think it was a wine merchant. Do some research about a roman soldier named Pantera or Pandeira or Pantheras.

Asha'man

Are you kidding? Then who would god kill? After all, it is all about the killing....we all know how much he loves his killings.

spin

Amos raises a grin with the following:
-------------------------------------
In case you think you do not have a soul ask yourself if you are alive when you ar not consciously aware (such as when you are asleep or are daydreaming). Kind of just opposite to Cogito ergo sum, you might say, because your soul takes care of you even when you are not rational.
-------------------------------------

Are dogs alive when they sleep Amos old friend? Do they have a soul?

Tell me, now, Amos, where does this soul reside? What is it made of and how does one locate it? Is it in your head? Does it suffuse your whole body? (If you have had an appendix operation have you lost a bit of your soul?) If you think it's in some other "dimension", how would you know that there is such a thing, as you have no facilities to check it out?

In case you still think you have a soul, Amos, why do you think so?

Life is a little like a candle flame. When the candle is spent, what happens to the flame?

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin

Amos:
------
If Mary would have been defiled resurrection could not have followed the event because the Magi could not have followed the Morning Star (Mary) to Bethlehem.
------

Gosh, this is entertaining stuff, Amos.

Naturally if you are a believer in the omnipotence of your god then you would know that there could be no "could not haves".

Amos:
------
"Yahweh incarnate" is the right words to use if Epiphany must reveal the blueprint of "son of man."
------

"Son of man" is simply a Hebrew periphrastic means of referring to humans, ie born of man. Christian confusion over the term merely means that whoever wrote the gospels either didn't understand the source material or didn't have access to it. Look at the way the term "son of man" is used in Ezekiel, for example. Daniel uses the term in just this same manner, when describing the figures in ch.7. The four beasts were like strange animals, while the good guy was like a human being (like a son of man), though obviously he wasn't a son of man.

Christians have simply made a mess of the term "son of man", putting it in the mouth of Jesus and giving him the impression of not understanding what he is talking about.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spin:
<strong>Amos raises a grin with the following:

Are dogs alive when they sleep Amos old friend? Do they have a soul?</strong>

Hello spin, yes dogs have a soul. <strong>

Tell me, now, Amos, where does this soul reside? What is it made of and how does one locate it? Is it in your head? Does it suffuse your whole body? (If you have had an appendix operation have you lost a bit of your soul?) If you think it's in some other "dimension", how would you know that there is such a thing, as you have no facilities to check it out?</strong>

The soul does not reside but just is without pretending to be who we are. Yes, it is in another dimension but only because as pretenders do we not know who we really are. So now, not our soul but our ego is in another dimension and from there we do not have facilities to check it out.<strong>

In case you still think you have a soul, Amos, why do you think so? </strong>

Well now you are rushing to the conclusion because I never said that I have a soul nor that I was even part of the argument. I just pesented the soul image to indicate that the Immaculate Conception is in charge of our very own being when we are not rational and increasingly less as we become more rational. We share our free will with the IC and it is not untill we are truly free that it can be said that we have no soul.

<strong>
Life is a little like a candle flame. When the candle is spent, what happens to the flame?</strong>

True but would it not be nice to know what makes the candle burn so we can be in charge of the flame.<strong>

Amos:
------
If Mary would have been defiled resurrection could not have followed the event because the Magi could not have followed the Morning Star (Mary) to Bethlehem.
------
Gosh, this is entertaining stuff, Amos.

Naturally if you are a believer in the omnipotence of your god then you would know that there could be no "could not haves".</strong>

Regardless if we are believer or unbeliever existence is needed to make omnipotence known. It has nothing to do with faith or doubt but with the understanding of existence (the candle).<strong>

"Son of man" is simply a Hebrew periphrastic means of referring to humans, ie born of man. </strong>

I have no problem with humans born of man but hold that they were created in the image of God.<strong>

Look at the way the term "son of man" is used in Ezekiel, for example. Daniel uses the term in just this same manner, when describing the figures in ch.7. </strong>

I am not an OT reader so I'll leave your opinion as it is.<strong>

Christians have simply made a mess of the term "son of man", putting it in the mouth of Jesus and giving him the impression of not understanding what he is talking about. </strong>

Jesus did not know what he was talking about? It is more likely true that you do not understand what he was talking about.

Bree

Amos - I'm interested in learning the reasoning behind the idea that the gospels took place in Purgatory? Is Purgatory, then, here on Earth? I know a few Catholics that believe so, but I don't believe it's because of any doctrine.

spin

spin:
-----
Amos: Are dogs alive when they sleep Amos old friend?

Do they have a soul?
-----

Amos:
-----
Hello spin, yes dogs have a soul.
-----

Next thing you'll know, fish, lice and lichen will have souls!

spin:
-----
Tell me, now, Amos, where does this soul reside? What is it made of and how does one locate it? Is it in your head? Does it suffuse your whole body? (If you have had an appendix operation have you lost a bit of your soul?) If you think it's in some other "dimension", how would you know that there is such a thing, as you have no facilities to check it out?
-----

Amos:
-----
The soul does not reside but just is without pretending to be who we are.
-----

It just is, yet you have no way of knowing where it is. This means that you don't know whether it is or isn't.

Amos:
-----
Yes, it is in another dimension but only because as pretenders do we not know who we really are. So now, not our soul but our ego is in another dimension and from there we do not have facilities to check it out.
-----

You know of course who you are although you have no way of knowing a thing about your soul, even whether it exists! You believe, Amos.

spin:
-----
In case you still think you have a soul, Amos, why do you think so?
-----

Amos:
-----
Well now you are rushing to the conclusion because I never said that I have a soul nor that I was even part of the argument.
-----

You've just finished telling me a dog has a soul!

Yes, you're a part of the argument, when you use terms that you cannot show as being relevant.

Amos:
-----
I just presented the soul image to indicate that the Immaculate Conception is in charge of our very own being when we are not rational and increasingly less as we become more rational. We share our free will with the IC and it is not untill we are truly free that it can be said that we have no soul.
-----

What is this immaculate conception other than the supposed impregnation of Mary with Jesus without the help of a male to rupture the hymen, etc? It's not in the biblical literature. Therefore it is not even oecumenical dogma.

Amos:
-----
Life is a little like a candle flame. When the candle is spent, what happens to the flame?
-----

Amos:
-----
True but would it not be nice to know what makes the candle burn so we can be in charge of the flame.
-----

Do you want to look at the skeleton beneath the skin? Flames are only flames and are the fruit of the candle. Does the apple need to ask the tree why?

Amos:
------
If Mary would have been defiled resurrection could not have followed the event because the Magi could not have followed the Morning Star (Mary) to Bethlehem.
------

spin:
-----
Gosh, this is entertaining stuff, Amos.

Naturally if you are a believer in the omnipotence of your god then you would know that there could be no "could not haves".
-----

Amos:
-----
Regardless if we are believer or unbeliever existence is needed to make omnipotence known.
-----

Who needs omnipotence to be know. This sounds like mystifying logorrhea and nothing more.

Amos:
-----
It has nothing to do with faith or doubt but with the understanding of existence (the candle).
-----

You are assuming that "omnipotence" or whatever you hide behind the term is somehow relevant.

spin:
-----
"Son of man" is simply a Hebrew periphrastic means of referring to humans, ie born of man.
-----

Amos:
-----
I have no problem with humans born of man but hold that they were created in the image of God.

spin:
-----
Look at the way the term "son of man" is used in Ezekiel, for example. Daniel uses the term in just this same manner, when describing the figures in ch.7.
-----

Amos:
-----
I am not an OT reader so I'll leave your opinion as it is.
-----

What, you don't look at the old testament? Why not? It will help you understand your own religion.

spin:
-----
Christians have simply made a mess of the term "son of man", putting it in the mouth of Jesus and giving him the impression of not understanding what he is talking about.
-----

Amos:
-----
Jesus did not know what he was talking about? It is more likely true that you do not understand what he was talking about.
-----

If you had read what I said, you would note that I talk of people putting words in Jesus's mouth. Just check the paragraph out again.

If you don't read, or you don't understand, the old testament, you won't understand the problem I am talking about. It's fairly simple. Dan 7 talks about one "like a son of man" (notice the simile?) who goes up to heaven on the clouds. This gets transformed into the Son of Man coming on the clouds by someone who either didn't understand the original text or didn't read it, but trusted some tradition.

If you think Jesus actually spoke of the "son of man" as represented in the gospels, then you'll conclude that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about with his use of the source text.

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

wendel1808

I am a non-denominational Christian, so hopefully I can shed some light, perhaps another perspective to this argument.

Granted if you have read any other posts of mine, you will know that I've only been a Christian 2.5 years, so I admit I don't know everything about the Bible, but have studied it and go to a church who believes in it. I also teach Sunday School to 5th graders and just taught on the "Easter Message" or the Resurrection of Jesus and feel I have good understanding of the Christmas (the birth of Jesus) story as well. That said, I have never heard of the following:

And frankly, the following is a pretty foreign idea to me:

This is not anywhere in the Bible that I have seen, so Amos, if you would like to prove me wrong please do so...

My understanding is the following: Mary was just like every other person on the planet, sinful. But she was a virgin and never had sexual intercourse before the time Jesus was born. Here is what the Bible says.

Matthew 1:18-25 (NIV translation) says,
v.18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before the came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. v.19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

v.20 But after he has considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
v.21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

v.22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: v.23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel,"--which means, "God with us."

v.24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. v.25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This is from the notes provided in my Bible with a few of my words here and there for clarification (since we're a little out of context.)

Note: v.20 what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit... This agrees perfectly with the announcement to Mary (in Luke 1:35)

In Luke 1:26-35 it talk clearly about the virginal conception of Jesus. In v.34 Mary asks the angel how she can give birth because she is a virgin and then v.35 says, The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

So, the conception was the work of the Holy Spirit, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, while remaining God, also "became flesh" (John 1:14). From conception he was fully God and fully man.

wendel1808

In response to the following:

AND

Yes, Jesus was sinless, but by saying the “gospels take place in purgatory” are you implying that all of man alive during this time was sinless? The only sinless person to EVER walk to face of this planet was Jesus.

Where does the Bible say this?

All his life, Jesus walked with God, the Father and was always in His presence. This allowed Jesus to resist the temptation offered by Satan himself, even after Jesus had fasting 40 days and 40 nights in the desert. No man on earth could ever resist Satan and so no person besides Jesus will every be tempted by him. (1 Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what yu can bear.")

**Please note that temptation is not sin, but yeilding to the temptation IS sin.**

Jesus never sinned and was thus perfect. When Jesus was being crucified on the cross, he cried out to God after the 3rd hour aand cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). At this moment, when Jesus said "Why have you forsaken me?" God rejected Jesus and God was separate from Jesus. This had to happen because like I said in my last post, Jesus was fully God or “God in the flesh,” and God cannot be in the presence of sin or he would cease to be God. So, by God's divine power, all the sins of world past or present were placed upon Jesus. In a nutshell, Jesus became like man, a sinner, by external powers (God). Jesus’ death makes it possible for all men/women to be forgiven of sin.

Then, after Jesus died (Matthew 27:50), he was dead for 3 days and on the third day, he was resurrected from the dead (Matt. 28:5-7). Because Jesus was raised from the dead, this allows man to be able to go to heaven and live with him there forever.

The “transformation” I believe Amos is speaking of is when Jesus rose into heaven in Mark 16:9 which says, “After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.”