Christ/AntiChrist.

[John D. Brey]

In the end, what is demonstrated is how, at the very foundations of Western thought, faith in the Incarnation has had the radically surprising effect of perfectly incarnating thought itself ----so much so that, in our time, thought itself has become for the first time the very form of the essentially new world in which we live.

D.G. Leahy, Preface to: Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact.​

A thumbnail-sketch of D.G. Leahy's thought, posits the long-awaited correction and inversion of Scholem's "primal-flaw," a primal-flaw whereby the material world, the written word, with all the science and philosophy based on the backwards etiology that supposes the physical is antecedent to the immaterial, is finally corrected through immaterial "faith" in Jesus' proposition that to enter the kingdom of God a person must be reborn not through the false material antecedence of the fleshly appendage, but through the living word which is, in truth, antecedent to, and not an epiphenomenon of, the material world, and its fleshly, backward, epistemological prejudice.

Leahy proclaims that those who exercise faith in Jesus' seemingly backward epistemological prejudice, find, perhaps to their shock and amazement, that indeed, faith in the spoken word, transforms them in a manner not unlike Jesus said it would: they realize that in truth their so-called "rebirth" retroactively situates itself as their original birth, so that they realize, as St. Paul put it (Ephesian 1:4), that they are already in Christ (in the real world) even before the foundation of the material world and a physical birth gallivanting as father and mother of their immaterial soul. They now understand that their so-called first birth, their physical birth, is in fact their second birth, hiding, as it were, within its material shell, the true genesis and authority of their glory, as though that glory is merely an epiphenomenal facet, or facade, of the reality, and solidity, of the material, physical, universe. In brief, what we think far transcends what we see in the mirror, even as the source of our rebirth (what we think) is greater by far than the source of our physical birth hiding from sight in our briefs.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In the end, what is demonstrated is how, at the very foundations of Western thought, faith in the Incarantion has had the radically surprising effect of perfectly incarnating thought itself ----so much so that, in our time, thought itself has become for the first time the very form of the essentially new world in which we live.

D.G. Leahy, Preface to: Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact.​

A thumbnail-sketch of D.G. Leahy's thought, posits the long-awaited correction and inversion of Scholem's "primal-flaw," a primal-flaw whereby the material world, the written word, with all the science and philosophy based on the backwards etiology that supposes the physical is antecedent to the immaterial, is finally corrected through immaterial "faith" in Jesus' proposition that to enter the kingdom of God a person must be reborn not through the false material antecedence of the fleshly appendage, but through the living word which is, in truth, antecedent to, and not an epiphenomenon of, the material world, and its fleshly, backward, epistemological prejudice.

Leahy proclaims that those who exercise faith in Jesus' seemingly backward epistemological prejudice, find, perhaps to their shock and amazement, that indeed, faith in the spoken word, transforms them in a manner not unlike Jesus said it would: they realize that in truth their so-called "rebirth" retroactively situates itself as their original birth, so that they realize, as St. Paul put it (Ephesian 1:4), that they are already in Christ (in the real world) even before the foundation of the material world and a physical birth gallivanting as father and mother of their immaterial soul. They now understand that their so-called first birth, their physical birth, is in fact their second birth, hiding, as it were, within its material shell, the true genesis and authority of their glory, as though that glory is merely an epiphenomenal facet, or facade, of the reality, and solidity, of the material, physical, universe. In brief, what we think far transcends what we see in the mirror, even as the source of our rebirth (what we think) is greater by far than the source of our physical birth hiding from sight in our briefs.

The Prophet Daniel proclaimed that in the end times knowledge of such things would increase to such a degree that elements of his own prophesy that were beyond the ken of his personal understanding would be lain bare so that what's in the cross-hairs of his prophesy will then be lifted up before all the nations so that they shall see the salvation of the Lord in a manner the prophet could not. A prophet greater than Daniel saw the same thing. Moses intuited a future when what was far beyond Israel's ken would be decipherable if the correct cryptographic key were made available to them. In his preternatural genius Moses saw fit to provide us that cryptographic key.



John

 

[Kenny]

I'm trying to understand where you are going from here

 

[paarsurrey]

Christ/AntiChrist.

The persecutors of Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, and his enemies (could be named anti-Christ) when they got confirmed:

1. that Yeshua had not died on the Cross
2. and has been delivered in a near-dead position
3. and after treatment of his injuries inflicted on him on the Cross
4. in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
5. had secretly gone to Galilee
6. and from there he had migrated from Judea
7. out the hands of both the Jews and the Romans

they thought of a new plan of revenge to lead astray the despaired followers of Yeshua who were left behind in Judea, one gets to know, please. Right?
This is how the birth of the AntiChrist took place, it transpires from the events that took place afterwards, please. Right?

Regards

 

[AlexanderG]

People intuit, proclaim, and think various things all the time. Most of them are wrong. If you want anyone to believe you, you need to be able to point at something in the external world that matches up with your imagination, to the exclusion of all other alternative explanations. Science does this by supporting their hypothesis with novel testable predictions that are then tested and confirmed.

I've never seen any religions meet this type of low evidentiary bar, and so they are indistinguishable from mere imagination. That's why science has given us flight, computers, and medicine, and religion gives us nothing more than personal feelings.

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm trying to understand where you are going from here

Einstein said the distinction between past, present, and future, is merely a stubbornly persistent illusion. More importantly he made us aware that time is nothing more than another dimension of the material world. Space and time are not different things but are different dimensions of the same thing: the carnal world. Time is "carnal," material, and thus untrustworthy. We should walk by faith, not by anything in the carnal world, to include the persistent illusion of an arrow of time.

Newton was Einstein's greatest mentor. Einstein said he trusted no scientist's instincts more than Newtons. And Newton trusted no scientist more than Moses. Which is to imply that Moses, more that Einstein, was patently aware that the distinction between past and future is illusory. If we know Moses knew this, we can unravel a rather earth-shattering cryptic message sent directly to those of us who are just now beginning to fully appreciate the illusory nature of the arrow of time and causality. Moses sent us a cryptic message that couldn't be unwrapped until the false distinction between past and future was firmly grasped by his audience; a cryptic message directly related to Christ/AntiChrist.




John

 

[rational experiences]

Human man holy man. Holy mind first position.

Says Christ only.

Term is just Christ. Only word ever acceptable the Christ.

No other words as you cannot use one word then defy that words term.

As said by a Holy man's mind first.

As you'd be lying.

One word position is holder owner.

Falsification. A human scientist forces as a human by their choice a machine which does not exist. Earths fused mass in space law he states was to convert God.

Termed Satanism of a human brother satanist scientist.

Fused mass is space law as God only.

Two laws he broke ∆ mountains erection fell into dust at its feet of its god type.

O earths mass sheet layers crumbled into dusts also.

Outcome against natural held one word owner body types.

His science God. Holy wanderer asteroid.

His evil science God burning colliding left gods holy star form into dusts...satanic.

Two types of God.

An asteroid holy star passing.
A fused earth God planet.

∆ mountain a holy point of a star. Don't change it.

It arose without exploding was the teaching.

 

[John D. Brey]

I've never seen any religions meet this type of low evidentiary bar, and so they are indistinguishable from mere imagination. That's why science has given us flight, computers, and medicine, and religion gives us nothing more than personal feelings.

In my opinion you're encapsulated in a false-narrative and illusion whose day should have come long ago but is only now being seen and understood. When Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge he wasn't being pithy or trying to make a meme. He was referring to the work of his dear friend Sir Karl Popper who argued precisely that what people consider mere imagination is the true source of scientific-endevor while the inductive logic most people think undergirds the scientific-method is in truth purely illusory.

The scientific-method is an outgrowth of religion and has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Prior to the human cerebral cortex coming online along with human grammar, every single living thing was an atheist. And the closest thing to the kind of imagination that leads to scientific creation was the Neanderthal clan genius using his great-grandfather's petrified femur to crack coconuts and corral the ladies of the clan.

It's only in the last thousands of years that human grammar has unleashed, incarnated, immaterial and immortal soul. And the same self-knowledge that uses complex human grammar, and produces imagination, intuits, in all cases, the immaterial spirit that undergirds all things:

Thus I share with the materialists or physicalists not only the emphasis on material objects as the paradigms of reality, but also the evolutionary hypothesis. But our ways seem to part when evolution produces minds, and human language. And they part even more widely when human minds produce stories, explanatory myths, tools and works of art and of science. All this, so it seems, has evolved without any violation of the laws of physics. But with life, even with low forms of life, problem-solving enters the universe; and with the higher form, purposes and aims, consciously pursued. We can only wonder that matter can thus transcend itself, by producing mind, purpose, and a world of the products of the human mind.

Karl Popper, The Self and Its Brain, p. 11.

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. . . We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200.

Aside from God, there is only one other being that is invisible and imperceptible to the senses, but whose individual reality and personal existence are nevertheless absolutely certain to each one of us. That being is our soul, our נפש. The soul that reflects on itself is capable of grasping the real, personal existence of an invisible, imperceptible Being; aware of itself, it also knows God. Just as we are sure of our own existence, so we are sure of God’s existence.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Deuteronomy 4:15.​

John

 

[rational experiences]

Are you aware as a human man that you stand on a rock planet?

Yes.

You named it gods body in science.

So as a natural real thinker I say it's a planet. It's rock. It's not science. It's named earth also.

So I am enabled by use the word to define non science human words agreement.

I believe in God as a natural human as I know I stand upon God. Planet earth.

A scientist destroyed their god ideals in scientific theism.

It's you who don't know God as a humans god.

In just a thinking humans first natural position.

I don't believe in science hence I don't believe in God. Your god type.

I however believe in earths God presence when science doesn't.

Science hence never believed in keeping maintained God.

 

[John D. Brey]

Thus I share with the materialists or physicalists not only the emphasis on material objects as the paradigms of reality, but also the evolutionary hypothesis. But our ways seem to part when evolution produces minds, and human language. And they part even more widely when human minds produce stories, explanatory myths, tools and works of art and of science. All this, so it seems, has evolved without any violation of the laws of physics. But with life, even with low forms of life, problem-solving enters the universe; and with the higher form, purposes and aims, consciously pursued. We can only wonder that matter can thus transcend itself, by producing mind, purpose, and a world of the products of the human mind.

Karl Popper, The Self and Its Brain, p. 11.

​

The theological import of Popper's thought is manifest in the title of his book. It's not without serious thought that Popper named the examinations in the book, The Self and Its Brain.

The self, though immaterial, and for the atheist thus purely imagination, is more real than "its brain." The brain, the material home of the self-conscious soul, is produced by evolution and biology, while of late the success of biology and evolution in producing the human cerebral cortex, has made it possible for the self to be breathed into the brain at the birth of the biological organ. When that organ senescences and dies, the soul doesn't die with it. It must find a new home up up and away, or down down down to the abyss.

Is this overactive imagination? Absolutely. Let's see an ape or atheist ape it.




John

 

[Brian2]

People intuit, proclaim, and think various things all the time. Most of them are wrong. If you want anyone to believe you, you need to be able to point at something in the external world that matches up with your imagination, to the exclusion of all other alternative explanations. Science does this by supporting their hypothesis with novel testable predictions that are then tested and confirmed.

I've never seen any religions meet this type of low evidentiary bar, and so they are indistinguishable from mere imagination. That's why science has given us flight, computers, and medicine, and religion gives us nothing more than personal feelings.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the peace that Jesus gives is not as great as things that you can see with your eyes.
You could be forgiven for thinking that it is science and not God who has given us flight, computers and medicine.
You can be forgiven for most things if you want to be forgiven. Forgiveness is very important.
You can be forgiven for thinking that a TV is greater than a human life.
But I'm speaking about God and not about religion.

 

[Kenny]

Einstein said the distinction between past, present, and future, is merely a stubbornly persistent illusion. More importantly he made us aware that time is nothing more than another dimension of the material world. Space and time are not different things but are different dimensions of the same thing: the carnal world. Time is "carnal," material, and thus untrustworthy. We should walk by faith, not by anything in the carnal world, to include the persistent illusion of an arrow of time.

Interesting points....

I would agree that we walk by faith and not by the temporal world. Certainly time is about the material world.

Probably definitions are important for understanding sake. I wouldn't use the word "carnal" but rather "temporal". The material world was not carnal until time began or, as I would say it, the carnality of sin began. But in and of itself the material world is not carnal.

Newton was Einstein's greatest mentor. Einstein said he trusted no scientist's instincts more than Newtons. And Newton trusted no scientist more than Moses. Which is to imply that Moses, more that Einstein, was patently aware that the distinction between past and future is illusory. If we know Moses knew this, we can unravel a rather earth-shattering cryptic message sent directly to those of us who are just now beginning to fully appreciate the illusory nature of the arrow of time and causality. Moses sent us a cryptic message that couldn't be unwrapped until the false distinction between past and future was firmly grasped by his audience; a cryptic message directly related to Christ/AntiChrist.

Faith is "now' and "present" not past or future. Would that be a way to say it?

 

[paarsurrey]

Christ/AntiChrist.

The persecutors of Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, and his enemies (could be named anti-Christ) when they got confirmed:

1. that Yeshua had not died on the Cross
2. and has been delivered in a near-dead position
3. and after treatment of his injuries inflicted on him on the Cross
4. in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
5. had secretly gone to Galilee
6. and from there he had migrated from Judea
7. out the hands of both the Jews and the Romans

they thought of a new plan of revenge to lead astray the despaired followers of Yeshua who were left behind in Judea, one gets to know, please. Right?
This is how the birth of the AntiChrist took place, it transpires from the events that took place afterwards, please. Right?

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah forewarned of rising such a person and his associates as is evident, one gets to know, please:

" The Pharisees are the primary opponent of the righteous through the Gospel of Matthew, and this could be another attack on them. However, Matthew 7:22 seems to make clear that the false prophets are Christian, rather than Jewish. This also could rule out other Jewish sects active in this period such as the Essenes and Zealots. While in later years Christian groups such as the Gnostics would become prominent rivals to mainstream Christianity, Gnosticism was not yet a major concern at the time this Gospel was written.[5] Scholars who see a rivalry between the Jewish Christianity of Mathew and the wider gospel of St. Paul have read this verse as an attack on Pauline Christianity.[6][7]
Matthew 7:15 - Wikipedia:
Isn't it clear that it must be Paul, I understand, please? Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

Probably definitions are important for understanding sake. I wouldn't use the word "carnal" but rather "temporal". The material world was not carnal until time began or, as I would say it, the carnality of sin began. But in and of itself the material world is not carnal.

Definitions are indeed important. Which is why I specifically used "carnal" instead of "temporal." For me your statement that the material world isn't carnal is part of the problem since it assumes, ala Neo-Darwinism, that there's indeed a material (or temporal) world sitting out there just waiting to evolve material creatures that are thus products of the material world, i.e., the material niches, that allegedly pre-exist the biological organisms and their minds which must adapt to the niches. That understanding of reality is a fallacy that's part and parcel of the problem that infects sound interpretation of scripture.

The "temporal" world doesn't really exist outside the qualia found in a carnal brain. In this sense, what we consider the temporal world is carnal (since it only exists inside a biological brain):

. . . all our perceptions are nothing but the representation of appearance . . . the things which we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them as being, nor their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us, and . . . if the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole constitution and all the relations of objects in space and time, nay space and time themselves, would vanish. As appearances, they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.

Immanuel Kant.​

Faith is "now' and "present" not past or future. Would that be a way to say it?

As Col. Thieme used to teach, "faith" is a means of perception, and not confidence in carnal perceptions. True faith isn't placing confidence in our carnal perceptions of space, time, and empirical facades, which for the carnal mind are temporal, real, and or the basis for reality. True faith is a new, profound, means of perception that transcends carnal, empirical, perception. Which is why atheists even in this thread like to speak of faith as merely impotent imagination. Einstein and Karl Popper believed otherwise.



John

 

[Kenny]

Definitions are indeed important. Which is why I specifically used "carnal" instead of "temporal." For me your statement that the material world isn't carnal is part of the problem since it assumes, ala Neo-Darwinism, that there's indeed a material (or temporal) world sitting out there just waiting to evolve material creatures that are thus products of the material world, i.e., the material niches, that allegedly pre-exist the biological organisms and their minds which must adapt to the niches. That understanding of reality is a fallacy that's part and parcel of the problem that infects sound interpretation of scripture.

The "temporal" world doesn't really exist outside the qualia found in a carnal brain. In this sense, what we consider the temporal world is carnal (since it only exists inside a biological brain):

. . . all our perceptions are nothing but the representation of appearance . . . the things which we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them as being, nor their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us, and . . . if the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole constitution and all the relations of objects in space and time, nay space and time themselves, would vanish. As appearances, they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.

Immanuel Kant.​

As Col. Thieme used to teach, "faith" is a means of perception, and not confidence in carnal perceptions. True faith isn't placing confidence in our carnal perceptions of space, time, and empirical facades, which for the carnal mind are temporal, real, and or the basis for reality. True faith is a new, profound, means of perception that transcends carnal, empirical, perception. Which is why atheists even in this thread like to speak of faith as merely impotent imagination. Einstein and Karl Popper believed otherwise.



John

Informative... but I don't agree.

The material body of Jesus is both material and spiritual.

 

[John D. Brey]

The material body of Jesus is both material and spiritual.

For what it's worth, or I should say for starters, that's oxymoronic. Is the body material or spiritual? Or a mixture? Or do the terms not really apply in this case except in an anthropomorphic or anthropopathic manner? The latter would be somewhat in line with the thoughts of D. G. Leahy as quoted in the thread-seeder. Which tends to supports your statement.

Leahy implied that understanding this very nuance affects the incarnation of thought in a profound and necessary manner such that your faith in the proposition (Jesus is both material and spiritual) is valuable, while "understanding" the proposition of your faith is exponentially so.

Paul said we walk by faith not by sight. But when our faith transmutes what we see into spiritual reality we're resurrecting the "temporal" or "carnal" world as we were resurrected in Christ. When enough Christians are succeeding in that, the temporal or carnal world will role over (at least for them) to the bottom side of the missionary position where it was originally intended to be. The offspring of that newfangled birthing mechanism might be the kingdom of God.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

Informative... but I don't agree.

The material body of Jesus is both material and spiritual.

Our friend @KenS
What a contradictory two different positions in a single sentence, @KenS writes as if he had created Jesus ?! Right?

Regards

 

[Kenny]

For what it's worth, or I should say for starters, that's oxymoronic. Is the body material or spiritual? Or a mixture? Or do the terms not really apply in this case except in an anthropomorphic or anthropopathic manner? The latter would be somewhat in line with the thoughts of D. G. Leahy as quoted in the thread-seeder. Which tends to supports your statement.

Leahy implied that understanding this very nuance affects the incarnation of thought in a profound and necessary manner such that your faith in the proposition (Jesus is both material and spiritual) is valuable, while "understanding" the proposition of your faith is exponentially so.

Paul said we walk by faith not by sight. But when our faith transmutes what we see into spiritual reality we're resurrecting the "temporal" or "carnal" world as we were resurrected in Christ. When enough Christians are succeeding in that, the temporal or carnal world will role over (at least for them) to the bottom side of the missionary position where it was originally intended to be. The offspring of that newfangled birthing mechanism might be the kingdom of God.



John

I think you have enumerated what I believe is a misconception. That somehow a material object can't also be spiritual as if the very things that we see isn't pulsating with the very substance and life of God.

To many people think that we see God through the concept of anthropomorphism not realizing that we are, in fact, made in His image and in His likeness (at least in my faith)

 

[Kenny]

Our friend @KenS
What a contradictory two different positions in a single sentence, @KenS writes as if he had created Jesus ?! Right?

Regards

Are you saying that God by Him and for Him didn't create everything? (I hold a biblical view of course)

 

[John D. Brey]

I think you have enumerated what I believe is a misconception. That somehow a material object can't also be spiritual as if the very things that we see isn't pulsating with the very substance and life of God.

To many people think that we see God through the concept of anthropomorphism not realizing that we are, in fact, made in His image and in His likeness (at least in my faith)

We probably agree for the most part. But in my opinion, some of the fine print is pretty important. Sometimes working out the nuances can make it appear that there's difference where there ain't. And sometimes there are some pretty big theological difference lurking beneath the surface of general agreement.



John