Amos

Good point. His was still the old Joseph but since Christ was born unto him as a second nature he is no longer the old Joseph and since he is not yet fully Christ he can't rightfully be called Christ and therefore they called him Jesus.

Overy born again-er will argue that he is a new creation and thinks he has become a Christian. His problem will be his sin nature (old skin) that he can't seem to shed and that is why the Gospels take place in puragtory. The old dies an the new begins at Resurrection in heaven.

Since they can't shed the old sin nature they will be lost and die nonetheless with the unresolved paradox "sinful yet saved."

missus_gumby

I know it's off-topic and nit-picking, but Amos, why are you referring to yourself in the plural?

nixon

Well at least I got a "good point" out of you Amos. Now if you could explain in detail just what all that crap you just said has anything to do with why JESUS (Not Joseph) was called Jesus instead of Emanuel I'da be happia.

Whoops {Puts the "Understanding New Age Christian" bong away}

Amos

Because Jesus was not Immanual! Jesus was torn between Immanuel and the old sin nature of Joseph.

The worship of Jesus is just protestant delusion and the example set by Jesus is Catholic determination, eg. the Jesuits.

Why do you think they crucified him? I've argued before that it was the best things the Jews have ever done and I'd be mighty proud of that if I was a Jew. It proves that they have a well functionning mythology which protestants can't ever say because they keep worshipping the image that needed to be crucified. This makes them the second beast of Rev.13 and have the mark to prove it.

Amos

As if I was born yesterday,

It is a human condition to be in search of happiness and girls know this all to well, for it takes two to tango and one must be the leader.

What I would like to add to my previous post is that not just the "forbidden fruit" but also the "unknown" is the negative stand in this rout and will tempt us (not you of course) as forbidden fruit until we "go for it" ("lead us not into temptation" is the end of evil and thus with it the end of creation . . . wherefore there is no sin in heaven). [This is why Communism is against freethought in Ales' post.]

x-member

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>

missus_gumby

To be honest, I can't pretend to understand any of what you wrote there. But please do not put that fact down to any lack of intelligence on my part.

All I asked was why you referred to yourself in the plural? A simple answer to a simple question was all that was needed - nothing more.

Martin

repoman

Jon up North,

You said that the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac into the pigs was strange, well you'll be surprised at the origin. Apparetnly in the book "Homer and the Gospel of Mark" (I think) it says that this was borrowed from The Odyssey. It is a rough analog to Circe the sorceress turning some of a Odyssues' men into pigs and then driving them over a cliff.
The technique that was common at that time was to write things similar on many points to Homer and then give it a twist at the end, as an improvement or to give a different moral. He gave many points where Mark does this.
He compares Jesus to Hermes who can see everything from a mountain top and who can walk on the water. He makes Jesus BOTH a carpenter and a fisherman so he can draw parallels to Odysseus. When a storm comes Odysseus has to beg to the wind god Aeolus, while Jesus calms the wind himself. The point is that Jesus is better than Odysseus.
Of course this probably only explains minor plot details.

repoman

Oh, almost forgot..

When I brought this up to a fairly smart christian girl, she said "Homer must have ripped Mark off." Guess public education aint what it used to be.

Also I have been trying to figure Amos out. I myself can have problems of being too conceptual and obscure in expression, especially if I have emotional blocks about a subject. But it seems to me that Amos probably understands a lot better than he can be understood. Only half joking do I suggest that Amos go in to have a appointment with Oliver Sacks. He could probably make a chapter or two.
The only thing that I can suggest is to imagine that what you are talking directly to a person in the simplest way you can.

missus_gumby

Amos, if English is not your first language, please try again - maybe you could translate your answer using the 'babelfish' at <a href="http://www.altavista.com" target="_blank">Altavista.com</a>.

Cheers, prost, salut

Martin