Which is the most important Commandment of the Western God?

[I am...]

Quote from oddiduro:
My question is, if the bible is ..... God's book, why is it so full of errors?

Jesus said that he would be in the earth three days and three nights, but he was in the ground from friday evening until sunday morning.

What's up with that????

The bible is a collection of literature that only becomes "holy" as it is interpreted by the "Holy Spirit". In essense, the Holy Spirit is a gathering spirit, and the unholy spirit is a scattering spirit. The unholy spirit is the spirit which writes the script that is the world, and also writes the unholy bibles within it...for its support. By reinterpreting what was written, the Holy Spirit gathers the scattered back to the *whole*. The unholy spirit fights to scatter and maintain a kind of diaspora of the One. The confusion that expresses as "christianity" is a manifestation of this fundamental conflict of interests.

So, the bible is the story of One scattered, and the beginning of the regathering process: Atonement [at-one-ment]. As a rule of thumb, the unholy spirit questions, and the Holy Spirit answers. The unholy spirit defines truth by confining it, and the Holy Spirit releases the truth by redefining what would limit it.

Jesus said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again". Three days is half of six days, the amount of time it took the unholy spirit to make the world...per Hebrew lore. And this spirit is reverently called "G-d", or some such. The truth is, the making of the world symbolizes the destruction of the Son of God...the destruction of his mind which is his "temple". The world, as such, is an unholy idol in a holy temple. The idol desecrates the wholeness of the holy One. The death of Jesus is the symbol of the destruction of the mind of the Son of God by the unholy idol in his mind. The idol is one, which expresses as *many*. So, it is the *many* which kills the One. It is the many *special* which betrays him to death. It is lies which kill the Truth.

The tomb that Jesus was placed in symbolizes all of time. All of time is a dark, closed mind, which tells itself lies about the One. "Three days" is a reference to half the amount of time it takes "gOd" to make the world...according to Hebrew lore. So, three days is symbolically half the amount of time it takes lies to destroy the truth. Three days is a reference to the unmaking of a world of lies. It is not a reference to how many days and nights someone stays in a hotel...unless you are talking about the proverbial "Hotel California". The message is this: In the same amount of time that a lie attempts to make a world of its own, the Truth will unmake it. So, after six days, instead of a lie, will stand the Truth. Stated another way, a lie checks in for a six day stay [forever]. The Truth checks out three days later, destroying the plans of the lie.

Interpreted correctly, the symbol of Jesus stands at the mid-point of time...the beginning of the end of time. If it has been three million years since the beginning of time, then the end may come in another three million. Or, if the beginning was six million, the end will come in half that time, as the truth saves time in its unmaking. Time will end. All that is happening is the saving of time, by the spreading of truth. The truth of the true Light will spread at twice the speed [GoDspeeD] as the lie of the false lights. A horse returns to the barn faster than it leaves, because of enthusiasm.

In brief, the "tomb" is the symbol of existence within time, and the resurrection is the symbol of the end of time. Within the tomb, the "son of man" is "born to die". This is all part of a great lie, dispelled by the truth over time. As the truth spreads throughout the mind that lies to itself that is is "the universe", "the universe" shall "pass away" as a dream that never was.

In other words, as fast as Murray the Turtle can confuse the issue, the Spirit of Truth will clarify the issue...even faster.

GoDspeeD,

Christ!

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Sad in a way isn't it. You two are trying to argue which is more believable - Mother Goose or The Little Red Hen.

It is amusing that you think that is what the argument was about.

at least your foolishness is well developed.

Your lack of understanding here is very consistent with your rejection of the dictionary as on authority of the definition of atheist --- or that historical records of Jesus can be consulted to prove he is an historical figure or that a founder of string theory (Physicist) might be someone competent to comment on the creation of the universe.

You see Stu intelligent people realize it is important to set the terms and definitions of debate.

 

[stu]

Glad you find it amusing. Doesn't alter the bottom line though, that is all your argument is or can be about.

When all's said and done, there is nothing more to the Bible than there is to other folk lore narratives.
They are all similar and the same. Comparing them or ideas about them is in the end comparing one fantasy tale to another. Mother Goose to Little Red Hen. Star Trek to Star Wars.

There are no historical characters in the Bible , any more than there are in Star Trek. However William Shatner will be historical. Jesus isn't.
The best it gets for the Bible is maybe there was perhaps a representation or portrayal of someone or other in a role playing characterization. It’s a big maybe. But fundamentally like Jack and the Beanstalk the Bible is fictional writing. Jack nor Jesus are historical.

There are no historical records of Jesus. Robin Hood and King Arthur are more likely to be historical. You can huff & puff , deny and contradict, with bits of this & that you have been spoon fed to the contrary , eagerly swallowing what is obviously not so without caring and refusing to understand how it is otherwise. But that won't change the fact there is more evidence of Santa than there is of Jesus.

You can pretend as much as you like that a founder of string theory (Physicist) as you put it, didn't say he rejects the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligence. Denying his own recorded film statement and refusing to understand how it is otherwise . But that won't change the fact you have incontrovertible evidence that what you say is a deceit.

You can also limit and restrict your understanding further by choosing to ignore and deny reasonable terms and definitions when offered , yet twist and turn , alter, connive, translate and mutate words and meaning into anything you feel like and use them with any and all deception in attempt to alter meaning to the extent that no-prophet means prophet as murrayTurtle has it, or right means wrong, true means false, black means white , despite dictionaries or not, when trying to misrepresent and fantasize the Bible is more than fiction.

Dissecting a fairy tale to compare it against another, doesn't mean either are not the fairy tales they start out as . Unintelligently imagining they are , won't change that fact.
To anything but wanton ignorance, the Bible along with your arguments for it are simply duplicitous stories around fantasy.

Quote from jem:

It is amusing that you think that is what the argument was about.

at least your foolishness is well developed.

Your lack of understanding here is very consistent with your rejection of the dictionary as on authority of the definition of atheist --- or that historical records of Jesus can be consulted to prove he is an historical figure or that a founder of string theory (Physicist) might be someone competent to comment on the creation of the universe.

You see Stu intelligent people realize it is important to set the terms and definitions of debate.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Glad you find it amusing. Doesn't alter the bottom line though, that is all your argument is or can be about.

When all's said and done, there is nothing more to the Bible than there is to other folk lore narratives.
They are all similar and the same. Comparing them or ideas about them is in the end comparing one fantasy tale to another. Mother Goose to Little Red Hen. Star Trek to Star Wars.

There are no historical characters in the Bible , any more than there are in Star Trek. However William Shatner will be historical. Jesus isn't.
The best it gets for the Bible is maybe there was perhaps a representation or portrayal of someone or other in a role playing characterization. It’s a big maybe. But fundamentally like Jack and the Beanstalk the Bible is fictional writing. Jack nor Jesus are historical.

There are no historical records of Jesus. Robin Hood and King Arthur are more likely to be historical. You can huff & puff , deny and contradict, with bits of this & that you have been spoon fed to the contrary , eagerly swallowing what is obviously not so without caring and refusing to understand how it is otherwise. But that won't change the fact there is more evidence of Santa than there is of Jesus.

You can pretend as much as you like that a founder of string theory (Physicist) as you put it, didn't say he rejects the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligence. Denying his own recorded film statement and refusing to understand how it is otherwise . But that won't change the fact you have incontrovertible evidence that what you say is a deceit.

You can also limit and restrict your understanding further by choosing to ignore and deny reasonable terms and definitions when offered , yet twist and turn , alter, connive, translate and mutate words and meaning into anything you feel like and use them with any and all deception in attempt to alter meaning to the extent that no-prophet means prophet as murrayTurtle has it, or right means wrong, true means false, black means white , despite dictionaries or not, when trying to misrepresent and fantasize the Bible is more than fiction.

Dissecting a fairy tale to compare it against another, doesn't mean either are not the fairy tales they start out as . Unintelligently imagining they are , won't change that fact.
To anything but wanton ignorance, the Bible along with your arguments for it are simply duplicitous stories around fantasy.

you are so hung up - you lie.

Josepheus - is one of the few historical records we have of the time. He made multiple references and Jesus and his followers. Your website crackpot guru is probably partially correct - one of the passages in some of the copies we have from Josepheus's works was altered.

But, academics accept the other passages. Consequently Jesus was a historical figure.... by definition. your crackpot ideas about history can not be reconciled with the historical record.


Regarding your review of the video. I gave you video and writings confirming my statements. Only a al queda like zealout could be so intentionally ignorant of fact.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

They are all similar and the same. Comparing them or ideas about them is in the end comparing one fantasy tale to another. Mother Goose to Little Red Hen. Star Trek to Star Wars.

There are no historical characters in the Bible , any more than there are in Star Trek. However William Shatner will be historical. Jesus isn't.

To compare unreal concepts as if by comparison, one was true and the other false...this is the essence of "judgement". So, for example, to say that Star Trek is "good" and Star Wars is "evil"...this is what it means to "judge".

Likewise, each and every "person" is "living" in a virtual reality, not more meaningful than Star Wars or Star Trek. In that virtual reality, no person is more real than another. So, Jesus is not more real than Captian Kirk. However, what William Shatner is to Captain Kirk is what Christ is to Jesus.

Christ is reality. All else is virtual. There are no genders, races, or opposing forces in reality. This is a "judgement", yes. But it is the judgement of reality on unreality. This kind of judgment brings unreality to its inevitable end. Any other kind of judgement perpetuates a vitual reality, in one's own mind.

Christ!

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are so hung up - you lie.

Josepheus - is one of the few historical records we have of the time. He made multiple references and Jesus and his followers. Your website crackpot guru is probably partially correct - one of the passages in some of the copies we have from Josepheus's works was altered.

But, academics accept the other passages. Consequently Jesus was a historical figure.... by definition. your crackpot ideas about history can not be reconciled with the historical record.


Regarding your review of the video. I gave you video and writings confirming my statements. Only a al queda like zealout could be so intentionally ignorant of fact.

It's ugly to see what blind religious belligerence does to a person like you.

Even though you posted the video and even though the subject is speaking the very words in it himself which contradict what you say, you'll still deny what he is saying and call me the liar. That is a delusional sickness you have there jem. You seriously need to get some help with that.

What type of religiously induced diseased thinking is it that leads you to do that ?

The same thinking that will make you blank out everything said and written, even by religious scholars who are obviously not as cursed with the deceit you are. Scholars who show a mass of records from the prolific Josephus and other writers of the time, who recorded the most ordinary things but which have NO mention of such earth shattering events like a Savior of mankind, or Son of God by the name of Jesus or any other, save for only one entry of which by the consensus of those same scholars, was an addition fraudulently inserted, altered and doctored at later dates.

The perpetrators of that deception probably had a similar mindset to yours. No doubt they too were suffering from a raging pride and gigantic ego born of extreme religious fervor which you obviously do.

Your credibility is totally shot by it. Because of the tape incident alone nothing you say can be trusted.

 

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

To compare unreal concepts as if by comparison, one was true and the other false...this is the essence of "judgement". So, for example, to say that Star Trek is "good" and Star Wars is "evil"...this is what it means to "judge".
[...]

Blah blah.... dear god!!

[...]

Christ!

"To compare unreal concepts as if by comparison,..."... then as one is false in the same way so is the other.
Faery tales are that way.
Bible /Beanstalk same unreal concept.

No offence but hell's teeth, it is rather obvious - you silly hippy.

 

[jem]

STU you lie... here is just one proof. You said Jesus is only mentioned once by Josephus.

First I will give you a link which fairly address the disputed passages...


here is the Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html


then we have the passage which only kooks challenge - from wikipedia:

"The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[34]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[jem]

I am saving your quote to show what a nit wit you are. See where you said stuff about scholars and only one mention.

By the way would you expect a Jewish historian to write earth shattering stuff about Jesus being the Savior of mankind?

How many historical sources do you think we still have from that time period. I have read that all sources combined would fit on a small bookshelf.

Jesus is mentioned in the historical record in two passages. Part of one is disputed. The other is undisputed... save a few kooks.

That makes him a historical figure by definition.


It's ugly to see what blind religious belligerence does to a person like you.

Even though you posted the video and even though the subject is speaking the very words in it himself which contradict what you say, you'll still deny what he is saying and call me the liar. That is a delusional sickness you have there jem. You seriously need to get some help with that.

What type of religiously induced diseased thinking is it that leads you to do that ?

The same thinking that will make you blank out everything said and written, even by religious scholars who are obviously not as cursed with the deceit you are. Scholars who show a mass of records from the prolific Josephus and other writers of the time, who recorded the most ordinary things but which have NO mention of such earth shattering events like a Savior of mankind, or Son of God by the name of Jesus or any other, save for only one entry of which by the consensus of those same scholars, was an addition fraudulently inserted, altered and doctored at later dates.

The perpetrators of that deception probably had a similar mindset to yours. No doubt they too were suffering from a raging pride and gigantic ego born of extreme religious fervor which you obviously do.

Your credibility is totally shot by it. Because of the tape incident alone nothing you say can be trusted. [/QUOTE]

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

Bible /Beanstalk same unreal concept.

The main thing to understand about the bible is that somewhere between the "old" and the "new" the "truth" is "crucified". They don't call em "red letter" editions for nothing! You must learn to read what bleeds through, between the lines.

Christ!