Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?
If not a writer, was Jesus at least a good orator? Was he always clear, plain-spoken, effective and comprehensive?
Should the "incarnate Word of God" have been all these things in his communications?
Supreme Irony?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Supreme Irony?
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Supreme Irony?
Post #21[Replying to post 15 by William]
There are extreme problems with a God who has supposedly "Always Existed"
And I'm not talking about any problems associated with how that could be possible.
Let's allow that a God has always existed. And then realize that our entire universe has only been around for a mere blink of an eye in comparison with eternity. The existence of human beings are even an extremely lesser blink of time. Not to mention the fact that humans were quite crude in the early going. We've only become technological in the extremely recent past.
So then we are faced with the question of why a God would bother created such a crude universe, and crude human beings if he's been doing this sort of thing for all of eternity?
Are we his first creation? Is so, how does that fit in with a God who has existed forever?
And if we aren't his first creation then why are we so crude? Shouldn't we think that since he's has an eternity to create universes he should have figured out how to create a really decent one by now?
The idea that a God has existed for all eternity into the past just to avoid having to explain how the God itself came to be is a pretty desperate argument I would think.
I just don't see that as being a reasonable hypothesis.
An infinitely old God should be able to do better at creating worlds by now.
He's still creating humans that are defective?
When will he ever learn how to create decent humans?
In fact, any God who can't create decent humans on his first true is necessarily inept anyway. This would need to be a God who experiments by trial & error because he doesn't know how to design a decent world in the first place.
So the apology that God has no beginning and therefore does not require a creator fails miserably.
Realize also that this type of desperate excuse is only required to hold up the hope of an imaginary eternal God.
Secularism doesn't have this problem at all. Therefore secularism is already a leg-up on this kind of theistic apology.
Even if secularists allow that the stuff the universe is made of has "always existed" at least they don't claim that it's a conscious entity that actually has a purpose and intent. So there's no need to ask why "godless stuff" would still be creating flawed universes.
But for an actual "God" to do this would be extremely problematic.
So secularism would automatically win this kind of debate.
There are extreme problems with a God who has supposedly "Always Existed"
And I'm not talking about any problems associated with how that could be possible.
Let's allow that a God has always existed. And then realize that our entire universe has only been around for a mere blink of an eye in comparison with eternity. The existence of human beings are even an extremely lesser blink of time. Not to mention the fact that humans were quite crude in the early going. We've only become technological in the extremely recent past.
So then we are faced with the question of why a God would bother created such a crude universe, and crude human beings if he's been doing this sort of thing for all of eternity?
Are we his first creation? Is so, how does that fit in with a God who has existed forever?
And if we aren't his first creation then why are we so crude? Shouldn't we think that since he's has an eternity to create universes he should have figured out how to create a really decent one by now?
The idea that a God has existed for all eternity into the past just to avoid having to explain how the God itself came to be is a pretty desperate argument I would think.
I just don't see that as being a reasonable hypothesis.
An infinitely old God should be able to do better at creating worlds by now.
He's still creating humans that are defective?
When will he ever learn how to create decent humans?
In fact, any God who can't create decent humans on his first true is necessarily inept anyway. This would need to be a God who experiments by trial & error because he doesn't know how to design a decent world in the first place.
So the apology that God has no beginning and therefore does not require a creator fails miserably.
Realize also that this type of desperate excuse is only required to hold up the hope of an imaginary eternal God.
Secularism doesn't have this problem at all. Therefore secularism is already a leg-up on this kind of theistic apology.
Even if secularists allow that the stuff the universe is made of has "always existed" at least they don't claim that it's a conscious entity that actually has a purpose and intent. So there's no need to ask why "godless stuff" would still be creating flawed universes.
But for an actual "God" to do this would be extremely problematic.
So secularism would automatically win this kind of debate.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 15264
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Irony?
Post #22[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]
Well that eliminates some of the problems.
Existing forever does not automatically mean one has created forever. Even if it did, all that this signifies is that there are infinite numbers of universes.
How do you know we will not eventually evolve into something so magnificent that the 'crude' we once were becomes a forgotten thing?
A great deal many individuals who experience NDEs report a 'place' where they understand it to be timeless but cannot explain it in any words which relay information whereby others in this universe can have an exact understanding - simply because this universe has time in it.
Also:
The Concept of Timelessness in Buddhism
There is no logical reason why something which is timeless cannot produce universes whereby time can be experienced.
Obviously those of us existing within such a universe and experiencing it primarily as that, would struggle to accept such hypothesis as reasonable, but many who have had the experience of a different universe where time is not something to notice, are able to bring those ideas back into this one, which is why these ideas even exist. Really it should be considered unreasonable for anyone to be speaking about infinity and timelessness even as concepts, but this is not the case.
Here is the link where the reader can acquaint themselves with that discussion;
From chaos to complexity or always having been complexity?
Which is the truthful interpretation of the universe?
The program itself was meant to unfold as it did so it could be experienced as it is. Consciousness tweeks the program because it is able to and if all was 'perfect' (in the sense you are alluding to?) then this would not be possible.
One can look at this universe as 'perfect' for what it is, in relation to consciousness which is able to work with what it is, in the way that it does. It can be argued that this particular universe is indeed 'perfect' for what it was created to be experienced by and adapted within.
Decent humans also understand that there is much to learn from indecent humans. Even learning one is decent by observing what is indecent.
One can appreciate this more realistically if one understand we are new born relative to the universe which is newborn as well.
If a book has 50 chapters and you read the first line of the first chapter, do you claim to understand what the book is all about?
As a human with your own creative abilities would you rather have been born a perfect creator who knew how to create perfectly, or would you prefer to learn through experience, adjusting, recreating, going back to the drawing board, etc et al?
Lets say that you were the GOD that was created and then created this universe to experience it from within, divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy. Would you think of yourself as 'imperfect' or 'not good enough' or 'stupid' etc?
Perhaps for a while you would. Perhaps as you learned to adapt and appreciate, you would change your mind about yourself.
I think your main problem - and the shared problem with those like yourself who argue in this manner is that you limit yourselves to expressing a distaste at one primary idea of 'GOD' which has dominated the theological landscape for so long through such large numbers that ya'll make the mistake of thinking that in arguing against this particular idea of GOD with such arguments, you effectively 'lay to rest' the whole 'problem'.
i am here to offer opportunity for such to 'think again' and to show that your arguments fail when set up against better ideas of GOD which are far more realistic in regard to what we do know and are experiencing.
It is no better way/example for decent humans to conduct themselves than anything else us babies can think up and do.
It is kind of straw-man building imo - in this case, a particular idea of GOD is set up as the straw-man and then knocked down by a certain kind of argument. "whoop de do' on that one, but fails in relation to other ideas of GOD, as I have shown.
Basically put, we are speaking about different ideas of GOD and our arguments reflect that. Perhaps you as the secularist prefer to argue against the obviously flawed idea of GOD because it is easier and assures victory, hollow, but still victory.
*Hurrah!*
Biblical speaking, that is referred to as "Breastfeeding" rather than getting into the real meaty bits. Suckle away!!
Divine Insight
[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.
Creation has a beginning which is the essential aspect of the evidence.
Now one can indeed argue that if an entity created this reality, then that entity may itself have been created and that would be true if that entity had a beginning. From a position within the creation an individuate consciousness cannot easily tell, but there are clues...
The infinite regress argument ends with the idea that a creator who never had a beginning is an entity not created. The First Source.
Even being the case that The First Source could indeed create other entities who could in turn create such wondrous things such as this universe we are currently experiencing - those entities can be regarded as GODs - that which is the creation is the result of the particular GOD/GODs which created it and will reflect the 'nature' of the GOD/GODs which created it, but not necessarily the 'nature' of The First Source.
This is the result of creativity and exploration...it removes one from The First Source Reality into the creations and even within the creations one can move further from The Source of that creation as one creates other worlds to explore.
The thread that connects all creations to The First Source Reality is never lost but can become hidden by the creations.
This is where those within the creations experiencing those creations tend to mistake The First Source for that which FS created;
[font=Comic Sans MS]That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.[/font]~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.
Thus, while "creation is evidence for a creator", it is not necessarily evidence for the nature of The First Source.
The 'thread' I mentioned is the aspect of consciousness itself which we are (not which we have) and in that one can trace this back to First Source - effectively navigating through that which hides the true nature of the FS, stripping away all the creations in order to reveal the First Source.
This is essential why it is so important to regard oneself as an aspect of First Source Consciousness rather than some 'creation' of some 'creator'.
[font=Comic Sans MS]This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart.[/font]~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.
I hadn't noticed that myself...There are extreme problems with a God who has supposedly "Always Existed"
And I'm not talking about any problems associated with how that could be possible.
Well that eliminates some of the problems.
Yes. In essence we are like new born and so is this universe...Let's allow that a God has always existed. And then realize that our entire universe has only been around for a mere blink of an eye in comparison with eternity. The existence of human beings are even an extremely lesser blink of time. Not to mention the fact that humans were quite crude in the early going. We've only become technological in the extremely recent past.
The First Source creates beings (GODs) which are able to accomplish this in innumerable ways depending on their own creativity and knowledge and particular limitations therein.So then we are faced with the question of why a God would bother created such a crude universe, and crude human beings if he's been doing this sort of thing for all of eternity?
Unlikely.Are we his first creation?
Is so, how does that fit in with a God who has existed forever?
Existing forever does not automatically mean one has created forever. Even if it did, all that this signifies is that there are infinite numbers of universes.
In what way do you mean 'so crude'?And if we aren't his first creation then why are we so crude?
How do you know we will not eventually evolve into something so magnificent that the 'crude' we once were becomes a forgotten thing?
How do you know that she hasn't created infinite universes which are 'decent'? What if this particular one was created specifically to venture away from decent into something less than, in order to experience the less than decent?Shouldn't we think that since he's has an eternity to create universes he should have figured out how to create a really decent one by now?
Not at all. It is really more the instrument by which one can dispense with the ridiculous notion of infinite regression. "past' is only relevant to those experiencing time.The idea that a God has existed for all eternity into the past just to avoid having to explain how the God itself came to be is a pretty desperate argument I would think.
A great deal many individuals who experience NDEs report a 'place' where they understand it to be timeless but cannot explain it in any words which relay information whereby others in this universe can have an exact understanding - simply because this universe has time in it.
Also:
The Concept of Timelessness in Buddhism
There is no logical reason why something which is timeless cannot produce universes whereby time can be experienced.
'Old' is simply a notion created by consciousnesses experiencing beginnings and ends, young and old, within time.I just don't see that as being a reasonable hypothesis.
An infinitely old God should be able to do better at creating worlds by now.
Obviously those of us existing within such a universe and experiencing it primarily as that, would struggle to accept such hypothesis as reasonable, but many who have had the experience of a different universe where time is not something to notice, are able to bring those ideas back into this one, which is why these ideas even exist. Really it should be considered unreasonable for anyone to be speaking about infinity and timelessness even as concepts, but this is not the case.
Remember that 'seed' I wrote about to which you did not agree?He's still creating humans that are defective?
Here is the link where the reader can acquaint themselves with that discussion;
From chaos to complexity or always having been complexity?
Which is the truthful interpretation of the universe?
The program itself was meant to unfold as it did so it could be experienced as it is. Consciousness tweeks the program because it is able to and if all was 'perfect' (in the sense you are alluding to?) then this would not be possible.
One can look at this universe as 'perfect' for what it is, in relation to consciousness which is able to work with what it is, in the way that it does. It can be argued that this particular universe is indeed 'perfect' for what it was created to be experienced by and adapted within.
There are plenty of decent humans. Have we not read your own writ on this message board about your nice self and your nice family?When will he ever learn how to create decent humans?
Decent humans also understand that there is much to learn from indecent humans. Even learning one is decent by observing what is indecent.
One can appreciate this more realistically if one understand we are new born relative to the universe which is newborn as well.
If a book has 50 chapters and you read the first line of the first chapter, do you claim to understand what the book is all about?
This can be the case. If First Source creates creators, should FS make them all perfect creators or creators which can experiment and make mistakes and learn how to correct those mistakes etc? Learn how to be decent GODs, even within creations which make this a difficult task.In fact, any God who can't create decent humans on his first true is necessarily inept anyway. This would need to be a God who experiments by trial & error because he doesn't know how to design a decent world in the first place.
As a human with your own creative abilities would you rather have been born a perfect creator who knew how to create perfectly, or would you prefer to learn through experience, adjusting, recreating, going back to the drawing board, etc et al?
Lets say that you were the GOD that was created and then created this universe to experience it from within, divesting your wholeness into every conceivable aspect of that unfolding creation in order to experience it with perfect intimacy. Would you think of yourself as 'imperfect' or 'not good enough' or 'stupid' etc?
Perhaps for a while you would. Perhaps as you learned to adapt and appreciate, you would change your mind about yourself.
Not at all, due to my showing another way in which one is able to look at something.So the apology that God has no beginning and therefore does not require a creator fails miserably.
I think your main problem - and the shared problem with those like yourself who argue in this manner is that you limit yourselves to expressing a distaste at one primary idea of 'GOD' which has dominated the theological landscape for so long through such large numbers that ya'll make the mistake of thinking that in arguing against this particular idea of GOD with such arguments, you effectively 'lay to rest' the whole 'problem'.
i am here to offer opportunity for such to 'think again' and to show that your arguments fail when set up against better ideas of GOD which are far more realistic in regard to what we do know and are experiencing.
For me personally it isn't about 'hope' or 'desperation'. It is about logic and personal experience and Love. It is why I have lately being encouraging the reader to explore ways in which they might be able to get evidence for themselves through personal experience with OOB.Realize also that this type of desperate excuse is only required to hold up the hope of an imaginary eternal God.
Secularism is babies dribbling. It is itself a form of desperate hope in the finality of death and all trace of GOD.Secularism doesn't have this problem at all. Therefore secularism is already a leg-up on this kind of theistic apology.
It is no better way/example for decent humans to conduct themselves than anything else us babies can think up and do.
I am not sure whether you can see the absurdity in this statement in relation to my own arguments above but perhaps there will be those who will do.Even if secularists allow that the stuff the universe is made of has "always existed" at least they don't claim that it's a conscious entity that actually has a purpose and intent. So there's no need to ask why "godless stuff" would still be creating flawed universes.
Well hopefully you may be able to consider my own expansion of the idea of GOD and perfect et al, and allow yourself to reexamine your criticisms in light of that.But for an actual "God" to do this would be extremely problematic.
I do notice that 'this kind of debate' always depends upon terms and conditions and such things as 'what is acceptable re the OP subject matter under the spotlight and what is not.So secularism would automatically win this kind of debate.
It is kind of straw-man building imo - in this case, a particular idea of GOD is set up as the straw-man and then knocked down by a certain kind of argument. "whoop de do' on that one, but fails in relation to other ideas of GOD, as I have shown.
Basically put, we are speaking about different ideas of GOD and our arguments reflect that. Perhaps you as the secularist prefer to argue against the obviously flawed idea of GOD because it is easier and assures victory, hollow, but still victory.
*Hurrah!*
Biblical speaking, that is referred to as "Breastfeeding" rather than getting into the real meaty bits. Suckle away!!
Divine Insight
[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.
- Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Supreme Irony?
Post #23Well, I'm glad you're finally comfortable enough with this forum to bring your superstitions to the fore and give us a taste of what your religious predispositions actually are. Like Scientology or Mormonism, actual substance is withdrawn from the discussion until all parties involved are so thoroughly brainwashed that it makes even outlandish claims seem viable. Though despite the fact I don't think you've roped in anyone here, you still managed to go all the way with it. Maybe you think you can whip out dozens of links to your Member Notes in place of argumentation, or maybe you have some other criteria for when you bring us all this religious assertion with no substantial justification.William wrote: Divine Insight
[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.[/font] ~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.
I believe it was the claim of L Ron Hubbard that the story of Xenu was one that had to be withheld until an initiate was "ready" to hear it. He claimed that if someone was not prepared, they would catch pneumonia upon hearing the myth.
So, William, any reason you delayed in giving us this purely fantastical excerpt of your religion? Better yet, can you provide a justification for why you brought this up that doesn't depend on the miles of text you've squirreled away in your Member Notes for just such an occasion, acting as if you've done anything to justify diving head-first into this... whatever it is? I'd adore if you didn't have to depend on miles of assumptions you've sprinkled over the months just so you can dismiss my skepticism out of hand.
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #24
Pass on...? No, He came to die so His sinful elect sheep might be reborn free of the enslaving addiction to evil. Period.marco wrote:If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Post #25
The problem I have with this, Ted, is the purpose clause: "so that his sinful sheep..."
There is no connection between some man from the Middle East, his death and world-wide misdemeanours. Which particular ovine sins would attract forgiveness? He was apparently executed for some local crime; why make it more? The grandiose dogmas and doctrines that the Church has generated are themselves worthy of wonder at the work of man. Man has always made good use of his imagination, not least in the shadowy life of Christ.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6047
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6893 times
- Been thanked: 3244 times
Post #26
[Replying to post 17 by Walterbl]
The facts are that we do not know who actually wrote the Gospels or when they were written, Paul never knew Jesus and the early church was much later than Jesus. Therefore, none of what we have has been authenticated. That shows us that they couldn't possibly know if they got it right or not.The fact that all 4 independent eyewitness accounts, Paul, and the early church agree to a very high degree on Jesus words shows us that they got it right.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #27
Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.William wrote: [Replying to post 7 by bluethread]
Can you tie this analogy into the subject for the reader...how does Jesus accomplish this?That is why I visit my grandchildren and talk to them directly on occasion, so that they can be sure that they are learning how to think properly.
Post #28
There is something terribly sad in the belief that Jesus communicates to people at number 43, or 78 or 186B in clandestine fashion. A man capable of walking on water and raising the dead and a God able to part the Red Sea would surely have advanced at least to pencil and paper.bluethread wrote:
Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #29
marco wrote:
That is all good in the context of dad and his kids. You are not, I think, the incarnate son of God nor is your form of communication comparable with the one a favoured messenger of God would use.
I think you underestimate the importance of a parent and the awesome responsibility associated with it. I think the difference in communication is merely one of scale. I could insist that all my progeny live with me and be micromanaged by me moment by moment. However, this would only retard their development as independent moral agents.
One should not be content with a general impression. One should struggle as did Yacov and as the Shema states one should "Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.". Personally, I do not believe in Dante's Inferno. However, if one does, it would behoove that one to take the directives of the Shema very seriously and make them a priority in one's life.If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important. Its precise description and the terms of use, stated exactly, would be essential. As it is we don't know if hell awaits those who can't make out the message or interpret the message in a way different from, say, the Pope in Rome. Have Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses all misinterpreted?
The words were of the time, as are all words. However, the principles go beyond the specific time. If one were to insist on "timeless words" one would have to ask why Yeshua did not speak Latin, Hindi, Seminole, or even Fortran. The fact is that we have been endowed by our creator with the ability to rationally interact with the written word and receive enlightenment via the Ruach.Your last sentence is surprising, suggesting if Jesus wanted to speak to people in the 21st century he'd have addressed them directly. So his words were for his time only.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #30
I understand that would indeed be the judgement of a man of letters. However, there is enough trouble with hyperliteralism and relic idolotry as it is. One can only imagine the extent of those problems, if we had actual artifacts of the writings of Yeshua.marco wrote:There is something terribly sad in the belief that Jesus communicates to people at number 43, or 78 or 186B in clandestine fashion. A man capable of walking on water and raising the dead and a God able to part the Red Sea would surely have advanced at least to pencil and paper.bluethread wrote:
Yeshua via the Ruach HaChedosh continues to communicate with His followers.