Interpretation... Or God's View

[MNoBody]

a couple interpretive grammer items:
-"we cry ABBA, [Father]" AB=Father;BA= to come(comes) which is to say "The Father comes".
[as in, the character of his name's sake, his christly son on earth,
which is that ray (divine spark/light) in us, of the "Father" principle of all life in the universe].

-AMN- Egyptian for -the hidden God [Amen]
the hieroglyph is a god-man seated under a canopy
which represents that He is the personification of that Divine Nature hidden in man
imbuing him with life under the covering canopy of his mortal vestments.
(others depict the god-man under an umbrella, but the meaning is the same)

 

[blü 2]

I have already addressed that.

Only by generalized and wholly unspecific denials. I've given you chapter and verse. At no point have you addressed the specifics.

You have not answered as to how a father who is also a fireman (or other), and is also a son of a father suggests incompatibility.

Because that says nothing relevant to what I'm pointing out.

The Jesus of Mark IS an ordinary Jew until his baptism and adoption. He IS NOT the product of divine insemination and DID NOT pre-exist in heaven with God and DID NOT create the material universe.

The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are literal sons of God with God's own Y-chromosome. They ARE NOT ordinary Jews and they DID NOT pre-exist in heaven with God and they DID NOT create the material universe.

The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe. They were NOT ordinary Jews and they were NOT the product of divine insemination.

Would the real Jesus please stand up?

Please?

No one?


Is it your view, by the way, that Genesis is simply wrong and that Jesus, and not God, created the material universe?

 

[nPeace]

Only by generalized and wholly unspecific denials. I've given you chapter and verse. At no point have you addressed the specifics.
Because that says nothing relevant to what I'm pointing out.

The Jesus of Mark IS an ordinary Jew until his baptism and adoption. He IS NOT the product of divine insemination and DID NOT pre-exist in heaven with God and DID NOT create the material universe.

The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are literal sons of God with God's own Y-chromosome. They ARE NOT ordinary Jews and they DID NOT pre-exist in heaven with God and they DID NOT create the material universe.

The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe. They were NOT ordinary Jews and they were NOT the product of divine insemination.

Would the real Jesus please stand up?

Please?

No one?


Is it your view, by the way, that Genesis is simply wrong and that Jesus, and not God, created the material universe?

I was going to laugh, but then I thought, Oh dear. This guy is serious!!!
Now my head hurts in disbelief.

May I ask, how do you arrive at your information?
Do you read the Bible looking for something to argue about?
Have you ever actually sat and read the Bible before becoming a "skeptic" (I don't think skeptic actually describes you)?

Why you separate the accounts and put them in separate baskets, baffles me.
Perhaps I will understand you when you apply the same method you used, with the father I mentioned.
That way, I can understand the practical side to your idea, because right now your theory makes no sense.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I can understand the whole emotional, and feeling thing, but having the feeling that someone is standing behind you, does not tell you if the person is Hispanic, or African; green or yellow; happy or sad; wants you to play soccer, or cricket.
My question really is, how do you know "God speaks in concepts, not in words."? Did he talk to you?

When you say 'faith', can you explain what you mean?

Dear nPeace

Yes, I believe that God ”speaks” [to me] in concepts and not in words. Perhaps others hear words or see things, I do not not... but me, I get concepts.

If I do not understand the concepts that come at first, I study them, until I do. And then I analyse them to make sure that they are sound (e.i. that I have not distorted them somehow along the way). And then, I try them out. If they work (e.i. inspire to greater understanding and inner peace in others and self) - which they always have done so far - I live by them.

It works rather well, I feel .
Though I’m most certain that there are many other, very good ways by which to serve God’s Will too - if one wants to.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[nPeace]

Dear nPeace

Yes, I believe that God ”speaks” [to me] in concepts and not in words. Perhaps others hear words or see things, I do not not... but me, I get concepts.

If I do not understand the concepts that come at first, I study them, until I do. And then I analyse them to make sure that they are sound (e.i. that I have not distorted them somehow along the way). And then, I try them out. If they work (e.i. inspire to greater understanding and inner peace in others and self) - which they always have done so far - I live by them.

It works rather well, I feel .
Though I’m most certain that there are many other, very good ways by which to serve God’s Will too - if one wants to.

Humbly
Hermit

I'm not quite sure how exactly you mean. Would you mind giving an example of a concept.

I'll like to say though I think that is quite dangerous, since you know people pretend to be on your side - your friend - and they feed you good things, until they have your trust. Then they spring the trap.. You're caught... no escaping.
Is that not how the bird-catcher works?
Satan is no human bird catcher, but if he sees you as a bird, and he gets you eating his crumbs... unawares. Then you are caught, with no chance of escaping.

I think if you are trying to stay clear of what you detect as traps, that is a good thing, but thinking of what Psalm 91 (beautiful song), when we read that, we notice that God is the one who protects us from being caught, but it's conditional.
The Psalm says... "because you have made him your refuge."
How do we make God our refuge?

 

[MNoBody]

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear nPeace

Satan is no human bird catcher, but if he sees you as a bird, and he gets you eating his crumbs... unawares. Then you are caught, with no chance of escaping.

I know myself of no other “satan” but Man’s Ego ...though, in its distortion, Man’s Ego is ”evil” enough, so thank you kindly for your concerns nonetheless.

I'll like to say though I think that is quite dangerous, since you know people pretend to be on your side - your friend - and they feed you good things, until they have your trust.

You are right in that many fall helplessly to their Ego’s and become enslaved by them. Much harm is done onto others in this mindset. Yet, never forget that only you allow another’s betrayal (towards you) to rob you from your trusting nature. It is not in their power to steal your innocence and trust; it is in yours to maintain it.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[nPeace]

Dear nPeace



I know myself of no other “satan” but Man’s Ego ...though, in its distortion, Man’s Ego is ”evil” enough, so thank you kindly for your concerns nonetheless.



You are right in that many fall helplessly to their Ego’s and become enslaved by them. Much harm is done onto others in this mindset. Yet, never forget that only you allow another’s betrayal (towards you) to rob you from your trusting nature. It is not in their power to steal your innocence and trust; it is in yours to maintain it.

Humbly
Hermit

Okay. I think I understand your viewpoint.
Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

I was going to laugh, but then I thought, Oh dear. This guy is serious!!!
Now my head hurts in disbelief.

Goodness, it appears I didn't reply to this! My apologies for the delay.

I notice you're always too busy rolling on the floor laughing ever to come to grips with the specifics I've set out for you, chapter and verse. You've used the identical technique on the Genesis Flood question as well. It's remarkably unpersuasive, and says more about you than perhaps you're aware of.

May I ask, how do you arrive at your information?

It's all set out in the bible. You should have a look some time.

Do you read the Bible looking for something to argue about?
Have you ever actually sat and read the Bible before becoming a "skeptic" (I don't think skeptic actually describes you)?

Yes, of course.

Have you ever read it critically, or do you think it's a magic book that must always mean what you want it to mean?

Why you separate the accounts and put them in separate baskets, baffles me.

I already told you ─ the authors all have different messages, so their differences are as informative as their agreements. Your idea that they're all saying the one thing is simply untrue. The three different models of Jesus that I've spelt out for you are just one example. The inventing of stories like the 'all the world should be taxed' census and the 'massacre of the innocents' beg the question why that particular author would devise such yarns, and as I pointed out to you, the answer is, to move Jesus through a particular story or saying in the Tanakh that seems to him suitable to be a messianic prophecy.,

Why do you think he fantasizes like that? Yet another point you haven't come to grips with in our discussions.

 

[nPeace]

Goodness, it appears I didn't reply to this! My apologies for the delay.

I notice you're always too busy rolling on the floor laughing ever to come to grips with the specifics I've set out for you, chapter and verse. You've used the identical technique on the Genesis Flood question as well. It's remarkably unpersuasive, and says more about you than perhaps you're aware of.
It's all set out in the bible. You should have a look some time.
Yes, of course.

Have you ever read it critically, or do you think it's a magic book that must always mean what you want it to mean?
I already told you ─ the authors all have different messages, so their differences are as informative as their agreements. Your idea that they're all saying the one thing is simply untrue. The three different models of Jesus that I've spelt out for you are just one example. The inventing of stories like the 'all the world should be taxed' census and the 'massacre of the innocents' beg the question why that particular author would devise such yarns, and as I pointed out to you, the answer is, to move Jesus through a particular story or saying in the Tanakh that seems to him suitable to be a messianic prophecy.,

Why do you think he fantasizes like that? Yet another point you haven't come to grips with in our discussions.

Oh. There's nothing here.
Let me know when you have something we can really talk about, other than your ideas... which I can't reconcile with anything Biblical.
What better is there to do than 'dead with laugh.?

 

[blü 2]

Oh. There's nothing here.
Let me know when you have something we can really talk about, other than your ideas... which I can't reconcile with anything Biblical.

You can't reconcile those quotes from the bible I cited with anything biblical?

Really?

So you really mean you accept that the NT gives at least three basic and incompatible models of Jesus, it's just that you don't want to say so. This is progress.

Now we could move on to comparing the accounts of the resurrection and noting how all six of them are incompatible in major ways with the other five. You'd feel better knowing that than pretending they're all harmonious. wouldn't you?

 

[nPeace]

You can't reconcile those quotes from the bible I cited with anything biblical?

Really?

So you really mean you accept that the NT gives at least three basic and incompatible models of Jesus, it's just that you don't want to say so. This is progress.

Now we could move on to comparing the accounts of the resurrection and noting how all six of them are incompatible in major ways with the other five. You'd feel better knowing that than pretending they're all harmonious. wouldn't you?

Dude. You have not pointed out any "incompatible models of Jesus". Dear me. Just look at the number of mistakes you made in your attempts to find fault.
The incompatibilities are with your ideas, not scripture. I can't fight what's in your head, and I have no intention of tearing your head off... even if I could.

 

[blü 2]

Dude. You have not pointed out any "incompatible models of Jesus".

Explain it to me.

Was Jesus ─

1. An ordinary Jew who became the son of God by adoption after his baptism, as Mark says?

2. A product of the divine insemination of the Virgin Mary as Matthew and Luke say (though they wouldn't have know that meant Jesus had God's Y-chromosome)? Or

3. A being created by God in heaven who created the material universe and came into human form in a manner undescribed, as Paul and John say?

 

[nPeace]

Explain it to me.

Certainly... if I can.

Was Jesus ─

1. An ordinary Jew who became the son of God by adoption after his baptism, as Mark says?

Jesus was born on earth, after being transferred from heaven to the womb of a virgin.
Where did you read that Jesus was adopted after his baptism.?
He was already a son.
Because Jesus was flesh and blood - man - mortal - corruptible, he was anointed by holy spirit - that is, born from God to an inheritance to immortality - incorruptible.
Unlike his brothers though, he was a perfect man, so he did not need to be adopted as they were. He was already a son, since he was not alienated from God, by sin. (Colossians 1:21-23)

2. A product of the divine insemination of the Virgin Mary as Matthew and Luke say (though they wouldn't have know that meant Jesus had God's Y-chromosome)? Or

What?
Where did you see chromosome in the Bible?

3. A being created by God in heaven who created the material universe and came into human form in a manner undescribed, as Paul and John say?

Yes Jesus was a created being in heaven, which Paul and John confirmed, but Jesus was not creator. God is. By means of, or through Jesus were all things made.

 

[blü 2]

Certainly... if I can.

Where did you read that Jesus was adopted after his baptism.?
He was already a son.
Because Jesus was flesh and blood - man - mortal - corruptible, he was anointed by holy spirit - that is, born from God to an inheritance to immortality - incorruptible.
Unlike his brothers though, he was a perfect man, so he did not need to be adopted as they were. He was already a son, since he was not alienated from God, by sin. (Colossians 1:21-23)

Stop blathering and simply answer the question.

Which of the versions of Jesus ─ that of Mark, of Matthew/Luke or of Paul/John is correct, and which two are wrong?

 

[nPeace]

Stop blathering and simply answer the question.

Which of the versions of Jesus ─ that of Mark, of Matthew/Luke or of Paul/John is correct, and which two are wrong?

I really hope you are sober, because I don't know where this came from.
You asked me three questions, which I answered.
The foolishness that you asked in the second question, I asked you to confirm where you read it.

If you can't answer your own question, then why post it?
How can I answer made up nonsense?

If you were in the army, giving orders and shouting commands, please come out of that world, and back to reality, and realize that there are no soldiers in front of you.

If there is a bottle, then make sure there is none there when you sign on.
What I will do at this point, is wait a day or two, when you know what you are posting, and you can understand what is written, because clearly, right now you don't.

I'm sorry if you are having a hard time.
You have my sympathy.
That's not the solution though.

I edited the post, since I realized I had squeezed my answer into your comment.
My answer went like this...
Jesus was born on earth, after being transferred from heaven to the womb of a virgin.
Where did you read that Jesus was adopted after his baptism.?
He was already a son.... etc.

 

[nPeace]

Stop blathering and simply answer the question.

Which of the versions of Jesus ─ that of Mark, of Matthew/Luke or of Paul/John is correct, and which two are wrong?

You really want me to answer this.
I don't think there is anything that would convince me that you wrote this in your right senses, or with a clear head.
If you believe you wrote it while sober, then I think I will have to look at you differently...

I don't feel the question is worth answering frankly, but...
The Gospels do not present different versions of Jesus. They are all correct, and when combined give a full picture of Jesus' life and ministry. What is written may be viewed incorrectly by opposers, but the Gospels are correct.

 

[blü 2]

You really want me to answer this.
I don't think there is anything that would convince me that you wrote this in your right senses, or with a clear head.
If you believe you wrote it while sober, then I think I will have to look at you differently...

There you go again, never addressing the facts of the matter, the passages I referred you to that establish clearly everything I said.

The Gospels do not present different versions of Jesus.

Mark says he was an ordinary Jew till his baptism. Matthew and Luke say he was born of a virgin by divine insemination. Paul and John say he pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe.

Why don't you read your own texts and understand what they actually say, instead of wishing your personal views on them?

For instance, Paul says ─

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

And John says ─

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

So (bearing in mind Paul's unambiguous statement above that Jesus is not God, and the many statements in John where Jesus says he's not God) are Paul and John correct and Genesis wrong about who created the universe?

 

[nPeace]

There you go again, never addressing the facts of the matter, the passages I referred you to that establish clearly everything I said.
Mark says he was an ordinary Jew till his baptism. Matthew and Luke say he was born of a virgin by divine insemination. Paul and John say he pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe.

Why don't you read your own texts and understand what they actually say, instead of wishing your personal views on them?

For instance, Paul says ─

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

And John says ─

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

So (bearing in mind Paul's unambiguous statement above that Jesus is not God, and the many statements in John where Jesus says he's not God) are Paul and John correct and Genesis wrong about who created the universe?

Goodbye blu. You are not listening. You are preaching, and preaching strong, what is in your head.
It makes absolutely no sense going back and forth repeating the same thing.
If that's your kind of stuff, it's not mine.
Have it your way. Here

...and continue

If that's the way you like to be.
Be well.

 

[nPeace]

@Trailblazer

The Bible does not have a viewpoint, people read and interpret the Bible and have different viewpoints, and that is why Christianity is divided into so many sects. All are reading the same Bible but there are many different viewpoints. So who has the right viewpoint? Why would your viewpoint be any more correct than Brian's viewpoint or a JW viewpoint? They all read the same Bible.

Since you believe "the Bible has no viewpoint, but people read and interpret the Bible and have different viewpoints, and that is why Christianity is divided into so many sects", then to be consistent you must agree that your interpreting anything the Bible says, whether it be about the comforter - the holy spirit, son of man, or lightning, it is your viewpoint, and not the Bible's.
Is that correct?

I quoted a scripture to you earlier, you recall...
(John 5:39-44) 39 “You are searching the Scriptures because you think that you will have everlasting life by means of them; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. 40 And yet you do not want to come to me so that you may have life. 41 I do not accept glory from men, 42 but I well know that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me. If someone else came in his own name, you would receive that one. 44 How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?

1) Jesus and his followers used the same scriptures - the Hebrew canon, and yet disagreed.
Does that mean that they had their own viewpoint, and no one had the correct understanding of God's word?
What do you think.

2) From what I read in that verse, Jesus expected persons to know what the scripture were saying.
Which is why he condemned those who were searching the scriptures. They didn't want to know.
Does Jesus not expect the same today? Why do you think that is not the way it is today?