Adam and 4000 BC

Speaking of not reading what somebody wrote, you overlooked the statment I put in bold italics and underlined , and instead went for the part I said could possibly (although I think unconvincingly) be reconciled with logic. That's exactly what I thought you'd do, which is why I put it in bold underlined italics to begin with. Let me refreah your memory. I said: "Just to clarify, your position that the three women subsume the others is logically possible, although implausible, and the theory that the two disciples informed the other nine is logically possible. But it doesn't seem logically possible that the women told no one and that they told any disciples. That's the main point I'd like you to address." So you addressed the peripheral ones. Mark clearly says that none of the women told anybody. Unless your New World version says otherwise, it would seem that your elaborate reconstruction is a futile effort to reconcile the irreconcilable.

 

To understand this passage from one of the evangelists (Luke isn't it?) is to perceive the matter of the predicted resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dear sir, I think that you are speaking about the issue of Hope still held onto for the disciples for holy Spirit making sense in Time-existence.

However, to my understanding there was the essential separation of God in the probe of Godhead (I guess Luke didn't emphasize the reconciliation in providence to expect) that the holy-spirit pass into the re-structurable social community only because of Time-becoming out of temporal denial of Jesus being the son of Man (is that it? what there was to believe was doubted still in the Holy Spirit as to authenticity for the God in certain three Persons) Luke I guess must have believed that there was no original Holy SPirit for the need of Prophets yet in the Old Testament.

What will we do? If the holy spirit was to be meant for the History of the World (the only place of righteous God for the appropriate Saving) then the righteous God was empowering through a Time only existing in the Bible. The real time of our own existence is through the essence of the SPirit of temporalizing -- love mostly in the Ephesian type wisdom of common will of men and women. That was irresponsible but precisely empowering for the love of God through one's and these other women's physical Essence. Time is on our side. There is also physical time for the 4,000 B.C. which permitted scientific correspondence with the word of the Bible's mental Time.

 

That's okay you don't have to. I was mostly kidding you.

Oh, I recognize the paraphrased Scripture just fine, it's the things that you have been taught that are not from the Bible that content with and the things from the Bible that you take out of context.

Thanks for catching that. That is what what I meant, that the Bible is both consistent and wide ranging.

 

Say, what?

 

Since you have not shown me where the Scriptures said that anyone saw the angel roll the stone away, perhaps you would be so kind as to show me where the Scriptures so clearly say that "none of the women told anybody".

Mark 16:8 (King James Version) And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Mark 16:8 (New International Version) Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

I just don't see where it says "none of the women told anybody" and since I have already pointed out to you several times that there were many women there, it seems that Mark could be talking about what some women did but not all of them.

Does that better address the statement you think I "overlooked"?

 

Yes I do.

First God has never stopped anyone from translating the Bible or shown any disapproval of anyone doing so.

Second the Bible was written in at least three different languages, it would seem that if God wanted the Bible to remain in one language he would have it written in only one language.

Also the fact that the "good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" would seem to mean that those speaking all those different languages would either all have to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic or the Bible would have to be translated into their languages.

Yes. And the Bible is also perfect in any language that it is translated into.

 

Take out of context with what? I certainly do not take out of context the spirit that is taught. This is why I would hope at some point you would address the content of what I say as opposed to how the letters differ in order.

Might as well address the issue that is our largest immediate difference in interpretation. I see the hand of man in the development of the content of the bible, and in every respect as regards to canon. There is a reason that Paul is referred to as a zealot. Zealous execution of the cause was needed, however Paul I think would love the opportunity to return to rectify his over-reaching with personal bias when attempting to give instruction. Paul simply didn't have the advantage of knowing Jesus and being present to his teaching.

 

Except the language of King James. We have record of you saying it was an inferior translation.

 

I cited the Scripture: Matthew 28: 1-2. The KJV, the RSV, the NAS, the NIV, and the NLT make clear that the event happened before the womens' eyes. Read those passages. If you can't read, I'll read some for you: Now after the Sabbath,as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to look at the grave. And behold, there was a severe earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from the Heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat upon it." (RSV) "And behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it." I could go on and on, but I'll let you do that. Beyond that, I don't know how I or anyone else could show you anything.

Not at all. I dunno, man. It says "the women...said nothing to anyone..." When there are a bunch of women present, and somebody says "the women" (s)he normally means all of them. "The women" refers to the women whom Mark said were in the tomb, that being Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome." None of them told anyone. Are you implying there were other women who did tell that Mark didn't mention? I think that's a very strange interpretation, especially since the other accounts said the women, including ones mentioned by Mark, ran to tell. I think you just can't seem to understand plain English, and are so set on twisting the language to fit your preconception of consistency that you can no longer see straight. "The women", by ordinary English construction, would refer to all of the women. If you don't speaka da language, further discussion of scripture may be futile. Besides, didn't you say that Scritpture was so simple and straightforward anyone could understand it? I seriously doubt that everyone would read the words and come to the tortured conclusions you have. Even the major translators seem to be confused.

 

Apparently, we have a record of a number of other translations that OWB won't go along with. One would think that if God were guiding the writing of the Bible so that it turned out exactly the way He wanted it to, He'd have guided the translators too, who seem to differ in so many respects.

 

You take the Paraphrased Scriptures that you use out of context. Thus showing that the spirit that you are taught is not in harmony with what was written by Holy Spirit .

It is you that contend over "words" whenever I address you content.

And in doing so you underestimate the power of God and his Holy Spirit. Also in believing as you do you, allowing for the fact that people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to believe things that are just wrong, thus making the Holy Spirit sometimes wrong and imperfect but also leaving the possibility that all you believe as a result of your communication with the "Holy Spirit" is wrong and is something you'll want to take back someday.

How is that for addressing the content of what you say?

 

Actually no. It is not the language that it's in that makes it a poor translation. It is the fact that it is a poor translation that makes it a poor translation and even in it you can find God perfect word.

 

It was St. Luke!! Ace, but in Space, not Time.

Essence of the human evangelist precedes His existence. We can say that.

 

.

 

You are confusing form with content.

Waterbrother you contend that what I say is not congruent with what the bible says.

Would you rephrase this, it appears as gibberish to me.

You've examined no quote of mine. You've simply reiterated your belief that I am wrong. Bring up content, discuss content. We already know what you believe.

I have spoken for the innocence of the children of god. I have said that forgiveness redeems the world. I have said that to love god with all your might and your brother as yourself fulfills the whole law. I have said that to sin is to miss the sign of god, it is an error in perception. I have said that judgment is the original and root of all sin. I have said that Jesus' Life and teaching are demonstration of metaphysical principles. By metaphysical I mean of the essential nature of reality. I have said that Jesus offering his life was an act of incredible devotion, love, not an act of sacrifice. There is no greater love than to give your life for a friend.

You could start with theses statements and demonstrate how I have misconstrued the Holy spirit.

 

Then what I say, although you deem it a poor translation, contains gods perfect word.

 

It's hopeless, man. Facts and words have no meaning to him. He'll read a passage of scripture and even quote it, but give it a meaning that's grammatically off the wall, if it suits his purpose. What we're getting are the well-honed reflexes of an artful dodger. Is this an ad hominem attack? I don't think so, because I've already dealt with the substance, or lack thereof, of his previous post.

 

We have to say NOW doesn't exist and everything is a B-series. Try that.


More to this; it must have the orientation of the congregation bearing after-all to wonder if and how Christ succeeded for Redeeming Us. But that exists as well in a Liturgical B-series of it's own-- i.e. why the calendar?

 

Quote:
And in doing so you underestimate the power of God and his Holy Spirit. Also in believing as you do you, allowing for the fact that people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to believe things that are just wrong, thus making the Holy Spirit sometimes wrong and imperfect but also leaving the possibility that all you believe as a result of your communication with the "Holy Spirit" is wrong and is something you'll want to take back someday.

Quote:
Would you rephrase this, it appears as gibberish to me.


Thank heaven and thedope for responding as such. I was in fear that I'd become even more obtuse than usual - perhaps a sign of a stroke.

 

I think his purpose is that we find togetherness in god. I don't consider this hopeless. Waterbrother continues to be gracious in participating in this discussion. Only god is good, what displays grace, generosity, must also bear god. The kingdom is not complete without all of gods children.

There are the qualities of belief and faith that account for the phenomena called waterbrother. Belief becomes a symbol chosen to represent an unknown and unseen variable. This quality of belief must be defended because it finds no support, no measurable constituent, in reality.

The faith of the mustard seed is however a little willingness to suspend disbelief long enough that practice may demonstrate the truth and the truth sets us free.