Religion II

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have written recently that often in the Gospels the phrases "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" are personified. The kingdom is personified in its King. And in one of the links I posted in 1780 earlier today, the writer argues that many theologians believe this is the case with the kingdom. Here is an excellent, powerful, unmistakably clear example of this very thing. Christ is personifying the kingdom in Himself! This right out Luke's Gospel:

Luke 11:20-22
20 "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed;[/i] 22 [b]but when SOMEONE stronger[b] than he attacks him and overpowers him, HE takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied, and distributes his plunder.
NASB

The "strong man" is Satan. The "someone stronger" is Christ the King. This is precisely what Christ and his disciples very often did with these kingdom phrases. They personified them and I explained why yesterday, giving three biblical reasons.

Did Jesus refer to himself as "the King"...or was this title bestowed upon him posthumously...by those who presumed to know him even better than he knew himself?

[VigorsTheGrey]

YouTube

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dl2L4v6ecM

Soggy Bottom Boys

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Did Jesus refer to himself as "the King"...or was this title bestowed upon him posthumously...by those who presumed to know him even better than he knew himself?

Apparently you missed my 1732 in which I explained and supported from scripture why Jesus often spoke in indirect, obscure and even cryptic terms about himself. In fact, a trademark of Christ is that he very frequently referred to himself in the third person. You might want to check out the above post.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Apparently you missed my 1732 in which I explained and supported from scripture why Jesus often spoke in indirect, obscure and even cryptic terms about himself. In fact, a trademark of Christ is that he very frequently referred to himself in the third person. You might want to check out the above post.

Boxcar...you can't expect to be taken seriously when you pretend to "read Jesus's mind" by explaining why he spoke and acted as he did. The truth is that your knowledge of Jesus comes from the same sources that are available to us. Stop pretending that you are privy to the sort of "esoteric knowledge" that is totally inaccessible to you.

You don't KNOW why Jesus spoke and acted as he did...but your overgrown ego won't admit as much.

[PaceAdvantage]

But he does know. It's all part of being one of the "saints."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Regarding your position about ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, I have a question. Who is the authority to determine what is ridiculous, you?

The reader.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay, Actor, prove to all of us, with objective observable facts, that God is an idea and not a being.

Why should I? I never took a position on that idea.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Here is another definition for you.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, ...

Do you seriously think that a thread about religion is not going have arguments or get people upset? Maybe on a religious site where the moderators kick out anyone who disagrees with their dogma. That does not seem to be the case here.

And what makes you think I don't get upset.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

... by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] ...

Again, if the topic is religion you are going to get an emotional response. There are settings where one needs to hold one's tongue when religion comes up. This is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

... or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] ...

What do you think constitutes "normal, on-topic discussion" on this thread.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

[/I]... often for the troll's amusement.

I find this thread more frustrating than amusing. I've tried ignoring it. It draws me back.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Describes you to a tee, except you are not very good at trolling.

That's because I'm not a troll, your opinion notwithstanding. By the way, the definition seems to fit you.

[traynor]

This looks REALLY promising (as explaining a great many of the "missing parts"--stuff that should be there but is not).

"According to the Zohar, a foundational text for kabbalistic thought, Torah study can proceed along four levels of interpretation (exegesis).[6][7] These four levels are called pardes from their initial letters (PRDS Hebrew: פרדס‎‎, orchard).
Peshat (Hebrew: פשט‎‎ lit. "simple"): the direct interpretations of meaning.
Remez (Hebrew: רמז‎‎ lit. "hint[s]"): the allegoric meanings (through allusion).
Derash (Hebrew: דרש‎‎ from Heb. darash: "inquire" or "seek"): midrashic (Rabbinic) meanings, often with imaginative comparisons with similar words or verses.
Sod (Hebrew: סוד‎‎ lit. "secret" or "mystery"): the inner, esoteric (metaphysical) meanings, expressed in kabbalah.
Kabbalah is considered by its followers as a necessary part of the study of Torah – the study of Torah (the Tanakh and Rabbinic literature) being an inherent duty of observant Jews."

...

"According to traditional belief, early kabbalistic knowledge was transmitted orally by the Patriarchs, prophets, and sages (hakhamim in Hebrew), eventually to be "interwoven" into Jewish religious writings and culture. According to this view, early kabbalah was, in around the 10th century BC, an open knowledge practiced by over a million people in ancient Israel.[11] Foreign conquests drove the Jewish spiritual leadership of the time (the Sanhedrin) to hide the knowledge and make it secret, fearing that it might be misused if it fell into the wrong hands.[12]
It is hard to clarify with any degree of certainty the exact concepts within kabbalah. There are several different schools of thought with very different outlooks; however, all are accepted as correct.[13] Modern halakhic authorities have tried to narrow the scope and diversity within kabbalah, by restricting study to certain texts, notably Zohar and the teachings of Isaac Luria as passed down through Hayyim ben Joseph Vital.[14] However, even this qualification does little to limit the scope of understanding and expression, as included in those works are commentaries on Abulafian writings, Sefer Yetzirah, Albotonian writings, and the Berit Menuhah,[15] which is known to the kabbalistic elect and which, as described more recently by Gershom Scholem, combined ecstatic with theosophical mysticism. It is therefore important to bear in mind when discussing things such as the sephirot and their interactions that one is dealing with highly abstract concepts that at best can only be understood intuitively."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

This may seem really arcane to those who are unfamiliar with linguistics, especially the use of phonological embeds as semantic markers in spoken language. Consider it the linguistic version of double or triple entendre--on steroids. Specifically, the lacing of various meanings in a manner that is (almost) impossible to discern from written text alone.

Duh. The original writings were incomplete, by intent. They were meant to be studied concurrently with, and in addition to, the spoken version.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

The reader.
Why should I? I never took a position on that idea.
Do you seriously think that a thread about religion is not going have arguments or get people upset? Maybe on a religious site where the moderators kick out anyone who disagrees with their dogma. That does not seem to be the case here.

And what makes you think I don't get upset.
Again, if the topic is religion you are going to get an emotional response. There are settings where one needs to hold one's tongue when religion comes up. This is not one of them.
What do you think constitutes "normal, on-topic discussion" on this thread.
I find this thread more frustrating than amusing. I've tried ignoring it. It draws me back.
That's because I'm not a troll, your opinion notwithstanding. By the way, the definition seems to fit you.

Of course you leave out the main point. It is your admission you are here to mock.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar...you can't expect to be taken seriously when you pretend to "read Jesus's mind" by explaining why he spoke and acted as he did. The truth is that your knowledge of Jesus comes from the same sources that are available to us. Stop pretending that you are privy to the sort of "esoteric knowledge" that is totally inaccessible to you.

You don't KNOW why Jesus spoke and acted as he did...but your overgrown ego won't admit as much.

I do know what scripture reveals. It is accessible to all mankind. God gave mankind His inspired revelation for the purpose of saving man from his own ignorance. But as scripture teaches, "men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds are evil" (Jn 3:19). This is why the scriptures are not "accessible" to most men.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dl2L4v6ecM

Genius timing brother! Listen to this with my momma and daughter yesterday. She is pregnant with twins. This my friend is as close to God as you get! Very nice. But this is perfection IMO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BPoMIQHwpo

[traynor]

"According to classical rabbinic texts this parallel set of material was originally transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and then from Moses to Israel. At that time it was forbidden to write and publish the oral law, as any writing would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and abuse.

However, after exile, dispersion and persecution, this tradition was lifted when it became apparent that in writing was the only way to ensure that the Oral Law could be preserved. After many years of effort by a great number of tannaim, the oral tradition was written down around 200 CE by Rabbi Judah haNasi, who took up the compilation of a nominally written version of the Oral Law, the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה). Other oral traditions from the same time period not entered into the Mishnah were recorded as "Baraitot" (external teaching), and the Tosefta. Other traditions were written down as Midrashim."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of meaning is lost when the (media rich) spoken version is transcribed into the (media poor) written version.

Fortunately, that makes a LOT of sense to me, and fills in many of the missing parts.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire View Post
Regarding your position about ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, I have a question. Who is the authority to determine what is ridiculous, you?

Actor replied:

The reader.

Great, give us the peer review support for your assertion. So there are no qualifications, except being the reader? Could the qualifications be the reader being condescending, believing he is superior to everyone else?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire View Post
Okay, Actor, prove to all of us, with objective observable facts, that God is an idea and not a being.

Actor's response.

Why should I? I never took a position on that idea.

Which idea? Which idea are you here to mock?

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm 44. Don't you just feel like you had this crisis of conscience at about 20 and it lasted a long time and you absorbed the pain. Reached agnostic as a default position because you thought atheism was BS too. And are just a spiritual vagabond? But as I said earlier are moral without a god and optimistic without a heaven? Any smart and imaginative man takes all these matters to heart. Is it really this agonizing for you?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

But he does know. It's all part of being one of the "saints."

1 Cor 2:10-14
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
NASB