THE TABERNACLE of His body
- Thread starter Sapphir7
- Start date
- Status
Hi Iceman16,
The Darkest Dawn.
[Regarding music, I like the rhythms of impact; Robert Plant-Ship of Fools, Jimmy Page-The Song Remains the Same, Celebration Day, In the Light; Pink Floyd-The Animals-the first 4 songs; Claim to Fame-Nazareth, and the Aerosmith's Crazy-Amazing-Nine Lives.]
The Darkest Dawn.
[Regarding music, I like the rhythms of impact; Robert Plant-Ship of Fools, Jimmy Page-The Song Remains the Same, Celebration Day, In the Light; Pink Floyd-The Animals-the first 4 songs; Claim to Fame-Nazareth, and the Aerosmith's Crazy-Amazing-Nine Lives.]
ignoring for a moment that christianity does not state that the high priests demanded jesus' death by "roman" methods, or that jesus was held prisoner in the praetorium (which in itself would be an amusing use of military resources - and where would he be held? - its a barracks, not a prison!)
perhaps we could try using kickbot on him?
perhaps we could try using kickbot on him?
Sphynx
Commodore
CIC Jesus,
I admire your compassion and am grateful for your reminder to be compassionate for our pal Saphir7. There is, however, another possibility to that which you have posted. I have dealt a lot with people experiencing various degrees of psychosis. Psychosis manifests itself through a person's predominant worldview. Thus, a Christian would have magical thinking, thought projection, thought introjection, convuluted thinking, and such around themes found in Christianity. They tend to obsess around minutae, and enact in ways around them that are bizarre to others but that make perfect sense to the person in the midst of psychosis.
All I can say is that our Sapphir friend sounds an awful lot like someone who is in the middle of a psychotic episode.
I debated whether or not I should do this, but what the heck. For our Sapphir friend, let me return a more coherent Biblical quote:
1 Cor 14: 33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." I don't believe that spiritual truth is to be found through convoluted and incoherent methods. I do believe that spiritual experiences are what teach people about spirituality, and at the same time, while they may be hard to put into words, they are not confusing, as your dialogue (or more appropriately put, monologue) has been.
Symbolism and parable are a part of most religious teachings. However, they are done in a fashion that is open to understanding. Take for example, Isaiah 1:18 (and Isaiah is known as one of the more complicated Biblical figures) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Even those who are not Christian or religious among us have a pretty good chance of figuring out the meaning here, even if we don't believe it. The symbolism is apparent and searchable, the purpose is clear, and the God of Christianty states that his way is to reason with people in a way they can understand.
So, Saphir, based upon the chance that you are not a bot, psychotic, or high on something, I'd urge you to reconsider the way you are treating people in your quest for spirituality. From what I understand, the whole point of Chrisitanity is loving God and loving other people. I do not mean to offend you by saying this, but I say it as someone who is worried about you: I'm not sure if the tone of mysterious condescendence you are using necessarily fits that second goal very well.
All religion, and in fact all spirituality and morality, is relational in context: it deals with how we treat other people and how we form healthy relationships. The methods you are using right now don't seem to be working very well.
Okay, I'm done with that. Usually, I think quoting any form of scripture in a non-religiosly oriented forum is a little out of line unless it is explicitly welcomed. So, I apologize if I have been out of line in this response.
I admire your compassion and am grateful for your reminder to be compassionate for our pal Saphir7. There is, however, another possibility to that which you have posted. I have dealt a lot with people experiencing various degrees of psychosis. Psychosis manifests itself through a person's predominant worldview. Thus, a Christian would have magical thinking, thought projection, thought introjection, convuluted thinking, and such around themes found in Christianity. They tend to obsess around minutae, and enact in ways around them that are bizarre to others but that make perfect sense to the person in the midst of psychosis.
All I can say is that our Sapphir friend sounds an awful lot like someone who is in the middle of a psychotic episode.
I debated whether or not I should do this, but what the heck. For our Sapphir friend, let me return a more coherent Biblical quote:
1 Cor 14: 33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." I don't believe that spiritual truth is to be found through convoluted and incoherent methods. I do believe that spiritual experiences are what teach people about spirituality, and at the same time, while they may be hard to put into words, they are not confusing, as your dialogue (or more appropriately put, monologue) has been.
Symbolism and parable are a part of most religious teachings. However, they are done in a fashion that is open to understanding. Take for example, Isaiah 1:18 (and Isaiah is known as one of the more complicated Biblical figures) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Even those who are not Christian or religious among us have a pretty good chance of figuring out the meaning here, even if we don't believe it. The symbolism is apparent and searchable, the purpose is clear, and the God of Christianty states that his way is to reason with people in a way they can understand.
So, Saphir, based upon the chance that you are not a bot, psychotic, or high on something, I'd urge you to reconsider the way you are treating people in your quest for spirituality. From what I understand, the whole point of Chrisitanity is loving God and loving other people. I do not mean to offend you by saying this, but I say it as someone who is worried about you: I'm not sure if the tone of mysterious condescendence you are using necessarily fits that second goal very well.
All religion, and in fact all spirituality and morality, is relational in context: it deals with how we treat other people and how we form healthy relationships. The methods you are using right now don't seem to be working very well.
Okay, I'm done with that. Usually, I think quoting any form of scripture in a non-religiosly oriented forum is a little out of line unless it is explicitly welcomed. So, I apologize if I have been out of line in this response.
Well said Sphynx, and along the same lines of what I had planned to say scrolling down this topic. I couldn't have said it better myself. I also thank you for using common speak-- without the use of flashy metaphors that only distract the reader into thinking or elevating the author to a higher level of intelligence that he or she might not deserve.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
(Austin Powers Imitation)
It's a bot, baby, yeeeahh!!!
(End Austin Powers Imitation)
It's a bot, baby, yeeeahh!!!
(End Austin Powers Imitation)
Hi Sphynx,
Wrote: “..loving the Eternal and loving other people.. ..not sure if the tone of mysterious condescendence you are using necessarily fits that second goal very well..”
The treasure was already hidden in that field of eternal words, and if I hide the treasure once more, [as it is said in His Parable of the Hidden Treasure] then, would I ‘not be loving’ other people for that?
Was the lamb indicted by Roman laws? - All I hoped from people was a simple answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’: that is my purpose; That is the reason I am posting in a Non-re’Legion Forum.
You perhaps would respond ‘yes’, because your words do demonstrate that you don’t care about the Tabernacle of His body.
You, perhaps, are of Him; but if you were of Him, then you would care, because I wrote about Tabernacle of His body. And you would have understanding to find out that I am not a bot nor a psychotic.
Wrote “..The methods you are using right now don't seem to be working very well..”
Methods for what? I already said; this is not a teaching; not a preaching; has nothing to do with ‘through faith’ not even ‘through believing’;
This is just a brief narrative of facts. And who ever try to deny the facts would be against the knowledge of the Truth. For the nonfiction facts are the real spiritual contents, not the religion and its ‘believings’.
Without proof nor evidence based in the facts only, the religious ones like to say that the lamb was indicted by Roman laws, but when the Light of the Truth shades their delusion, then they would write against the topic starter, because the wrong ones do continuously love their ‘believing’ instead of the knowledge of the Truth only.
by Sapphir.
Wrote: “..loving the Eternal and loving other people.. ..not sure if the tone of mysterious condescendence you are using necessarily fits that second goal very well..”
The treasure was already hidden in that field of eternal words, and if I hide the treasure once more, [as it is said in His Parable of the Hidden Treasure] then, would I ‘not be loving’ other people for that?
Was the lamb indicted by Roman laws? - All I hoped from people was a simple answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’: that is my purpose; That is the reason I am posting in a Non-re’Legion Forum.
You perhaps would respond ‘yes’, because your words do demonstrate that you don’t care about the Tabernacle of His body.
You, perhaps, are of Him; but if you were of Him, then you would care, because I wrote about Tabernacle of His body. And you would have understanding to find out that I am not a bot nor a psychotic.
Wrote “..The methods you are using right now don't seem to be working very well..”
Methods for what? I already said; this is not a teaching; not a preaching; has nothing to do with ‘through faith’ not even ‘through believing’;
This is just a brief narrative of facts. And who ever try to deny the facts would be against the knowledge of the Truth. For the nonfiction facts are the real spiritual contents, not the religion and its ‘believings’.
Without proof nor evidence based in the facts only, the religious ones like to say that the lamb was indicted by Roman laws, but when the Light of the Truth shades their delusion, then they would write against the topic starter, because the wrong ones do continuously love their ‘believing’ instead of the knowledge of the Truth only.
by Sapphir.
Sphynx
Commodore
Okay, so he's not a bot.
Sapphir, if you want a simple answer, it is usually a good idea to ask a simple question.
But it it really a question you are asking? It seems not. You seem to ask the question with an accusation attached, with a condmenation of sorts already determined for those who do not answer in the way you want them to.
That's not a question. That's a trap. If you want an answer, ask a question. Don't set a trap.
Furthermore, just because you only seek a "yes" or "no" answer does not make your question "non-religious." By your own implications, the answer people give will tell you something about their religious or spiritual status, in your opinion, whether they are lovers of the truth or lovers of their own belief. I don't know if this is naivete or manipulation on your part, but I'm afraid your methods are not as pure as you state your intentions to be.
I'm still not convinced that you are not psychotic. In fact, I am more and more convinced that you are.
To put your mind at rest, no, I do not believe that Jesus was indicted by Roman laws. The "trial" at question was completely illegal and did not even structurally qualify to be called a trial, even a scholarly Jew who does not believe in Jesus as a Messiah would be forced to admit that upon examination of Roman law at that time.
So, that is my answer. What now?
Sapphir, if you want a simple answer, it is usually a good idea to ask a simple question.
But it it really a question you are asking? It seems not. You seem to ask the question with an accusation attached, with a condmenation of sorts already determined for those who do not answer in the way you want them to.
That's not a question. That's a trap. If you want an answer, ask a question. Don't set a trap.
Furthermore, just because you only seek a "yes" or "no" answer does not make your question "non-religious." By your own implications, the answer people give will tell you something about their religious or spiritual status, in your opinion, whether they are lovers of the truth or lovers of their own belief. I don't know if this is naivete or manipulation on your part, but I'm afraid your methods are not as pure as you state your intentions to be.
I'm still not convinced that you are not psychotic. In fact, I am more and more convinced that you are.
To put your mind at rest, no, I do not believe that Jesus was indicted by Roman laws. The "trial" at question was completely illegal and did not even structurally qualify to be called a trial, even a scholarly Jew who does not believe in Jesus as a Messiah would be forced to admit that upon examination of Roman law at that time.
So, that is my answer. What now?
AD
Finder of things, Doer of stuff
I don't really get what you're trying to prove. You say your not preaching and then telling people that If they don't agree with you list of "facts" that they are spiritualy speaking in "mental darkness." That is despite the fact that many have already said over and over that they understand the points you are supposedly trying to make. Stop being an idiot and talking in circles. You should have realized by now that no one wants to play your little game. For someone who is apparently trying to enlighten us with facts you certainly are confounding more people then you are actually reaching with your incessant blathering. Ask your question and then shut up and listen. anything more comes across as some freakish attempt to conceal your true intent, as does the failure to properly adress the concerns of others. Neither is it very "christian" (as in one who imitates the Christ as opposed to a denomination) to disregard other peoples feelings. Love thy neighbor is hardly the same as ignore and confound thy neighbor. And neither does it harmonize with the idea of God desiring as many people as possible to be saved (use their free will to choose to serve him to the fullest extent possible given their circumstances). Don't ask a fundamentaly religious question and pretend its not.
On a purely secular lever the whole trial was a sham and your qestion is meaningless and has no yes or no answer because it was neither Jewish nor Roman law that condemned Jesus. Rather it was jealousy on the part of the jewish religious leaders over a percieved threat to their authority and fear for his neck and postion on the part of Pilate.
The Jewish trial was neither a concrete conviction, nor anywhere near legal. It was a mock trial to hide the fact that the corrupt religious leaders were railroading an innocent man and included perjury and a twisting of truth. Both Caiaphas and Annas knew exactly what they were doing (as they had decided previously that they were going to have jesus killed. Gee... a conviction before the actual trial... that REALLY sounds just
)
Jesus ended up before pilate under three different false accusations but the Claim that Jesus was trying to make himself king right then and there was and accusation of sedition, and thus why the case was of interest to pilate. Pilate could find no wrong, but feared a Jewish uprising and the fact that Rome would hear about it more than he feared condemning an innocent man. He gave in to the pressure and had Jesus impaled.
It really is neither The mosaic law, nor the roman law and actualy condemned Jesus to death.
Within the religious context you could argue that the fulfilment of the mosaic law required the death (sacrifice) of a perfect man to once and for all atone perfectly for the sins of all mankind (if they show they want to live in harmony with the arangement by which the value of that sacrifice is aplied). The attempt to shift blame to Pilate is more some kind of knee jerk reaction to what some people think is some kind of "antisemitic" condemning of the entire jewish nation when the only people being condemned (by God ) were the self-righteous, corrupt, and prideful religious leaders.
On a purely secular lever the whole trial was a sham and your qestion is meaningless and has no yes or no answer because it was neither Jewish nor Roman law that condemned Jesus. Rather it was jealousy on the part of the jewish religious leaders over a percieved threat to their authority and fear for his neck and postion on the part of Pilate.
The Jewish trial was neither a concrete conviction, nor anywhere near legal. It was a mock trial to hide the fact that the corrupt religious leaders were railroading an innocent man and included perjury and a twisting of truth. Both Caiaphas and Annas knew exactly what they were doing (as they had decided previously that they were going to have jesus killed. Gee... a conviction before the actual trial... that REALLY sounds just
)Jesus ended up before pilate under three different false accusations but the Claim that Jesus was trying to make himself king right then and there was and accusation of sedition, and thus why the case was of interest to pilate. Pilate could find no wrong, but feared a Jewish uprising and the fact that Rome would hear about it more than he feared condemning an innocent man. He gave in to the pressure and had Jesus impaled.
It really is neither The mosaic law, nor the roman law and actualy condemned Jesus to death.
Within the religious context you could argue that the fulfilment of the mosaic law required the death (sacrifice) of a perfect man to once and for all atone perfectly for the sins of all mankind (if they show they want to live in harmony with the arangement by which the value of that sacrifice is aplied). The attempt to shift blame to Pilate is more some kind of knee jerk reaction to what some people think is some kind of "antisemitic" condemning of the entire jewish nation when the only people being condemned (by God ) were the self-righteous, corrupt, and prideful religious leaders.
Ridgerunner
Vice Admiral
I think I'll have a cheese sandwich.
Hi AD,
Wrote: "..Don't ask a fundamentaly religious question and pretend its not."
The Word that became flesh IS the WAY and the TRUTH. The lamb did not follow religion. For every religion is an imposed doctrine.
I asked a question. Not a fundamentaly religious [imposed doctrine]; The Scripture of the Truth is immediate knowledge. Spiritual knowledge, but Not a religion.
Wrote: "..The [Hebrew] trial was neither a concrete conviction, nor anywhere near legal.."
Reality: “These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the books of the Law and in the books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.”
According to the Law, [to not take the Eternal’s Name in vain] a human being may NOT pronounce the tetragram [the Verb] of the Eternal Name "I AM" YHWH(GeHaVeH) while referring to her/himself.
Paraphrase of scriptures at Mark as originally written;
again the high priest asks him, and says to him, Are you the Kodhesh [Holy One] of Ishrael? And Gehav-óshua said, * I AM, and at this immediate moment I can be seen sitting at the right hand of Power, glittering in the clouds of the heaven.
Delusion: Pilate gave in because he was concerned about his career and about revolt — and conveyed the death sentence..
Reality: his wife sent to him, saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
Pilate listened to his wife and heeded her words because they pertained to the very man that the High Priests had brought before him. She was obviously deeply troubled by her dream and even said that it had made her suffer a great deal. What man in his right mind wouldn't heed such a profound and obviously prophetic dream?
Delusion: He had Jesus impaled. It really is neither [The Law of the Covenant which required Holiness], nor the roman law and actualy condemned Jesus to death.
Reality: He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Gehav-óshua to THEIR WILL. – And what was THEIR WILL – that he be suspended [his hands tied together above his head to a green Hebrew tree] according to the Law, and not according to the law of the invaders. As it is said:
- We have a Law, and he shall die according to our Law (where there is no cross), because he made himself Gehaveh [I AM] the Holy One of Ishrael.
The facts speak by themselves that a substitution of words have been made in the ‘Versions’.
I. Why in the ordinations that were left to the Roman church would the words 'cross, nails, crucify' have to be inserted in the place of the words 'tree, chords, suspend' in the Versions of the scriptures?
If there is a beast like a leopard not being a real creature but an illustration of a doctrine that would have to open its mouth in *blasphemies against the Eternal, to blaspheme the Tabernacle [of His body], then it would be reasonable that a substitution of words had to be a part of those ordinations; because the doctrine upon which the ‘Mother’ church is sitting, wouldn’t be a scarlet [obscure] beast [doctrine] and there wouldn’t be **blasphemy against the Tabernacle [body] of the lamb, if in truth the same body belonging to the Holy Spirit had been nailed to a cross of the Roman empire, instead of having both hands tied together with chords to a Hebrew tree attested in the books of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Psalms.
* blaspheme [definition], spiritually; 1. whenever Holiness and Eternity belonging to Whom is the Completeness of the Holy Spirit are attributed to something or someone which is not intrinsically Holy nor Eternal.
** blasphemy against the Tabernacle [body] of the Holy Spirit; [definition], spiritually; 2. whenever it is said that the Holiness to which the Tabernacle of His body had been separated [or sanctified] to die, could be applied to a law other than the Law in which abided the Holiness that was required to the fulfillness of all the Law.
Wrote: "..Don't ask a fundamentaly religious question and pretend its not."
The Word that became flesh IS the WAY and the TRUTH. The lamb did not follow religion. For every religion is an imposed doctrine.
I asked a question. Not a fundamentaly religious [imposed doctrine]; The Scripture of the Truth is immediate knowledge. Spiritual knowledge, but Not a religion.
Wrote: "..The [Hebrew] trial was neither a concrete conviction, nor anywhere near legal.."
Reality: “These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the books of the Law and in the books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.”
According to the Law, [to not take the Eternal’s Name in vain] a human being may NOT pronounce the tetragram [the Verb] of the Eternal Name "I AM" YHWH(GeHaVeH) while referring to her/himself.
Paraphrase of scriptures at Mark as originally written;
again the high priest asks him, and says to him, Are you the Kodhesh [Holy One] of Ishrael? And Gehav-óshua said, * I AM, and at this immediate moment I can be seen sitting at the right hand of Power, glittering in the clouds of the heaven.
Delusion: Pilate gave in because he was concerned about his career and about revolt — and conveyed the death sentence..
Reality: his wife sent to him, saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
Pilate listened to his wife and heeded her words because they pertained to the very man that the High Priests had brought before him. She was obviously deeply troubled by her dream and even said that it had made her suffer a great deal. What man in his right mind wouldn't heed such a profound and obviously prophetic dream?
Delusion: He had Jesus impaled. It really is neither [The Law of the Covenant which required Holiness], nor the roman law and actualy condemned Jesus to death.
Reality: He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Gehav-óshua to THEIR WILL. – And what was THEIR WILL – that he be suspended [his hands tied together above his head to a green Hebrew tree] according to the Law, and not according to the law of the invaders. As it is said:
- We have a Law, and he shall die according to our Law (where there is no cross), because he made himself Gehaveh [I AM] the Holy One of Ishrael.
The facts speak by themselves that a substitution of words have been made in the ‘Versions’.
I. Why in the ordinations that were left to the Roman church would the words 'cross, nails, crucify' have to be inserted in the place of the words 'tree, chords, suspend' in the Versions of the scriptures?
If there is a beast like a leopard not being a real creature but an illustration of a doctrine that would have to open its mouth in *blasphemies against the Eternal, to blaspheme the Tabernacle [of His body], then it would be reasonable that a substitution of words had to be a part of those ordinations; because the doctrine upon which the ‘Mother’ church is sitting, wouldn’t be a scarlet [obscure] beast [doctrine] and there wouldn’t be **blasphemy against the Tabernacle [body] of the lamb, if in truth the same body belonging to the Holy Spirit had been nailed to a cross of the Roman empire, instead of having both hands tied together with chords to a Hebrew tree attested in the books of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Psalms.
* blaspheme [definition], spiritually; 1. whenever Holiness and Eternity belonging to Whom is the Completeness of the Holy Spirit are attributed to something or someone which is not intrinsically Holy nor Eternal.
** blasphemy against the Tabernacle [body] of the Holy Spirit; [definition], spiritually; 2. whenever it is said that the Holiness to which the Tabernacle of His body had been separated [or sanctified] to die, could be applied to a law other than the Law in which abided the Holiness that was required to the fulfillness of all the Law.
- Status