Christian Ministers to Use 'Magic Mushrooms' for 'Religious Experience' for A Study

[daqq]

You align yourself with Sacred Scripture's own authority, mentally. When other challenge your explanation of Sacred Scripture, you react as if we are against Sacred Scripture. When we call you names, you take it as we are calling Sacred Scripture names. We accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, we reject your authority to explain it. We believe Sacred Scripture, we don't believe you.

There have been many, many people who have been delivered from addiction throughout the many years we've all been alive, and not all of them studied the law, so we know that there is more than one door to the freedom from liquor that you now currently enjoy.

You only accept the authority of the Catholic Church and its Popes to interpret and explain the scripture, and that is why you do not believe the scripture when it is posted, for you use that as an excuse not to believe the Testimony of the Messiah and instead exalt yourself and your mother church over the Word. You therefore confess that you are not taught of Elohim but rather you are taught by your mother church and your Popes.

John 6:44-45 ASV
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

Who therefore is correct and sound in his doctrine? The only place you can truly learn from the Father is in His Word which begins with the Torah. And you do not come to the Master to be taught but instead you go to your mother church and her writings, judgments, decrees, dogmas, and anathemas. And when someone quotes the Testimony of the Master you recoil by saying that they do not have the authority to interpret the scripture. It does not take any interpreting to understand what I have posted and quoted above from the Testimony of the Messiah: the reality is clear, you do not come to the Master because you have not heard anything from the Father. You therefore exalt yourself and your mother church and her teachings against the Testimony of the Messiah; and that, as I said, is one of the worst forms of pride, for not only do you do that but you have exalted yourself against those who believe that Testimony of the Master right here in this thread, even calling them idiots, in clear opposition to the Testimony of the Master in Matthew 5:22. Sorry for your left-hand billy goat luck but your mother church and Pope are not God.

HE IS RISEN.

Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

"Believe in thine heart that [HE IS RISEN]." Romans 10:9 (KJV)

By posting this again to me you are implying that I do not believe the Messiah is risen, when you already know that I do, because I have told you that I do more than once. You are making false insinuations. Why keep posting the same thing to me when I have already said that I believe those passages? I believe everything written while you do not because you only believe what your mother church goddess tells you to believe.

 

[Zeke]

The rebuke to the crass stupidity of so many centuries of theological scholarship, great and incredible as it really is, will be as nothing in comparison with the fatality of the blow which it will administer to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. It will demonstrate that Christianity was originated in ignorance and was exploited and perpetuated by ignorance. A writer of obvious high status, Allan Upward, actually was impelled on the evidence to write that Christianity has the unenviable distinction of being perhaps the only religion that was founded completely on the fraudulent exploitation of false premises. The fine Swedish scholar, Georg Brandes, published a book entitled Jesus a Myth. Some forty years or more ago a coterie of capable investigators, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith of Tulane University, Arthur Drews in Germany, Dupuis in France, and others, put out books aiming to present the case for the allegorical interpretation of the Gospels and other Biblical books. The famous work of D. F. Strauss, published in 1835, The Life of Jesus, advanced the same thesis and threw the theological world into a stir of excited controversy. Renan’s equally famous Life of Jesus further embroiled the situation in turmoil. Possibly a hundred scholars of great learning have been led by their studies and researches to put out books questioning and many overtly denying the existence of the historical Jesus (sugar pill) of Nazareth. Their aggressive essays have carried sufficient weight of data and argument to have elicited books 4 from the orthodox ecclesiastical side in efforts at refutation. And in reading these one really begins to be aware of the want of solid evidence, or even of convincing argumentative material to assure us of the historical authenticity of the Gospels. The case against the historical truth of the New Testament grows ever stronger, its defense grows ever less convincing. And in our own day we have a declaration from an authority within the Christian scholastic ranks whose utterance can not fail to command both attention and respect from all parties. Dr. Albert Schweitzer is justly rated as among the most eminent theologians of the Christian Church. His statement is put forth near the end of a work which demonstrates to any reader the stupendous range and thoroughness of its author’s survey of the whole field of literary criticism of the New Testament. Indeed his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, stands as unquestionably the most searching, as well as the most perspicacious, work ever produced on this vast and complicated subject. We give his declaration for its startling significance and the weight of its incontestable authority. Taken from page 398 of his book, it reads thus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb.
\
No wonder the christian hierarchy try's to side track its converts by pointing at boogy men and cultic rabbit trails so as to deflect them from looking into their history from all angles.

 

[Nihilo]

By posting this again to me you are implying that I do not believe the Messiah is risen

No I'm not. That's your paranoia, resulting from your passive aggression, which come from your pride, in the very real talent you do possess, of studying the scriptures. If you had the same aptitudes but were Catholic, you'd be a "Scripture scholar," which is a very respectful title, and you'd be a senior one at that. But you are instead aggressive, because you have identified yourself with Sacred Scripture. That's the difference between a good Catholic Scripture scholar, and a Protestant with power in the scriptures. The scriptures testify to, and of the Church; there's what we imagine as we study Sacred Scripture, and then there's the outwardly obvious, externally discerned, organizational hierarchy, of the Church; the Church mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

There's got to be something better than what I can dream up from studying the Bible. I look around, survey the physical landscape, there's an ancient organization; claims to be the "Church" from the Christian Bible. I study the scriptures, and I study the scriptures; ten times at least (Scripture scholars study it 100-1000 times or more), but I think something like a legit three times, a fairly legit in my mind 10-50 times, and then in an unlikely possibility, I study it constantly, and the value of the number of times I've studied the scriptures no longer has any meaning because of the constant and unending nature of my study of Sacred Scripture; but three times anyway legitimately.

The Catholic Church is better than the best I've got, from all my study of Sacred Scripture, as a Protestant.

, when you already know that I do

I do know that now.

, because I have told you that I do more than once.

I don't recall that. I recall at best confusion regarding the matter. We were embroiled in a to my mind heated discussion with @freelight about something, and I remember you kept siding with them over me, even though they do not believe HE IS RISEN, and you do.

You are making false insinuations. Why keep posting the same thing to me when I have already said that I believe those passages? I believe everything written while you do not because you only believe what your mother church goddess tells you to believe.

HE IS RISEN wasn't uttered by the Master, Daqq; it'd only be normal to not treat those words as importantly as those actually uttered by the Lord Jesus; during His earthly ministry, and after He ascended, when He spoke to the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John. But He didn't say HE IS RISEN. HE IS RISEN is said by others.

 

[Nihilo]

[MENTION=7266]Zeke[/MENTION], I very, very much tried, but I couldn't finish reading it. TL ; DR

But I do want to ask, What's the "sugar pill?"

And, it's not like every last detail of the Gospels even matters. There's HE IS RISEN, and then there's the supporting cast, and then there's the extras, and then there's the set, and then there's the dressing rooms, and then there's the parking lot outside the studio, and then there's the bus stop up the block, and then there's the coffee shop up the next block, and then there's a guy sitting in the booth in that coffee shop, munching on a hermit cookie and holding a steaming cup of black coffee, and he's reading the newspaper, and on the newspaper, the word clandestine is misspelt.

 

[steko]

The rebuke to the crass stupidity of so many centuries of theological scholarship, great and incredible as it really is, will be as nothing in comparison with the fatality of the blow which it will administer to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. It will demonstrate that Christianity was originated in ignorance and was exploited and perpetuated by ignorance. A writer of obvious high status, Allan Upward, actually was impelled on the evidence to write that Christianity has the unenviable distinction of being perhaps the only religion that was founded completely on the fraudulent exploitation of false premises. The fine Swedish scholar, Georg Brandes, published a book entitled Jesus a Myth. Some forty years or more ago a coterie of capable investigators, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith of Tulane University, Arthur Drews in Germany, Dupuis in France, and others, put out books aiming to present the case for the allegorical interpretation of the Gospels and other Biblical books. The famous work of D. F. Strauss, published in 1835, The Life of Jesus, advanced the same thesis and threw the theological world into a stir of excited controversy. Renan’s equally famous Life of Jesus further embroiled the situation in turmoil. Possibly a hundred scholars of great learning have been led by their studies and researches to put out books questioning and many overtly denying the existence of the historical Jesus (sugar pill) of Nazareth. Their aggressive essays have carried sufficient weight of data and argument to have elicited books 4 from the orthodox ecclesiastical side in efforts at refutation. And in reading these one really begins to be aware of the want of solid evidence, or even of convincing argumentative material to assure us of the historical authenticity of the Gospels. The case against the historical truth of the New Testament grows ever stronger, its defense grows ever less convincing. And in our own day we have a declaration from an authority within the Christian scholastic ranks whose utterance can not fail to command both attention and respect from all parties. Dr. Albert Schweitzer is justly rated as among the most eminent theologians of the Christian Church. His statement is put forth near the end of a work which demonstrates to any reader the stupendous range and thoroughness of its author’s survey of the whole field of literary criticism of the New Testament. Indeed his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, stands as unquestionably the most searching, as well as the most perspicacious, work ever produced on this vast and complicated subject. We give his declaration for its startling significance and the weight of its incontestable authority. Taken from page 398 of his book, it reads thus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb.
\
No wonder the christian hierarchy try's to side track its converts by pointing at boogy men and cultic rabbit trails so as to deflect them from looking into their history from all angles.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer was a brilliant idiot who missed the whole thing... just as you do.

 

[daqq]

No I'm not. That's your paranoia, resulting from your passive aggression, which come from your pride, in the very real talent you do possess, of studying the scriptures. If you had the same aptitudes but were Catholic, you'd be a "Scripture scholar," which is a very respectful title, and you'd be a senior one at that. But you are instead aggressive, because you have identified yourself with Sacred Scripture. That's the difference between a good Catholic Scripture scholar, and a Protestant with power in the scriptures. The scriptures testify to, and of the Church; there's what we imagine as we study Sacred Scripture, and then there's the outwardly obvious, externally discerned, organizational hierarchy, of the Church; the Church mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

There's got to be something better than what I can dream up from studying the Bible. I look around, survey the physical landscape, there's an ancient organization; claims to be the "Church" from the Christian Bible. I study the scriptures, and I study the scriptures; ten times at least (Scripture scholars study it 100-1000 times or more), but I think something like a legit three times, a fairly legit in my mind 10-50 times, and then in an unlikely possibility, I study it constantly, and the value of the number of times I've studied the scriptures no longer has any meaning because of the constant and unending nature of my study of Sacred Scripture; but three times anyway legitimately.

The Catholic Church is better than the best I've got, from all my study of Sacred Scripture, as a Protestant.
I do know that now.
I don't recall that. I recall at best confusion regarding the matter. We were embroiled in a to my mind heated discussion with @freelight about something, and I remember you kept siding with them over me, even though they do not believe HE IS RISEN, and you do.
HE IS RISEN wasn't uttered by the Master, Daqq; it'd only be normal to not treat those words as importantly as those actually uttered by the Lord Jesus; during His earthly ministry, and after He ascended, when He spoke to the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John. But He didn't say HE IS RISEN. HE IS RISEN is said by others.

Your non-recollection of conversations we have had is not my problem. :nono:
(And it sure seems all too convenient for you in your present predicament).

 

[Nihilo]

You only accept the authority of the Catholic Church and its Popes to interpret and explain the scripture, and that is why you do not believe the scripture when it is posted, for you use that as an excuse not to believe the Testimony of the Messiah and instead exalt yourself and your mother church over the Word.

Daqq, the Church is a main character in the Bible.

You therefore confess that you are not taught of Elohim but rather you are taught by your mother church and your Popes.

John 6:44-45 ASV
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

When you quote Sacred Scripture, sometimes I just don't read it at all because you're only quoting it to support your perverted idea that you dreamed up all on your lonesome. In this case, you somehow believe that John 6:44-45 (KJV) is against Holy Catholicism. I don't see it.

Who therefore is correct and sound in his doctrine? The only place you can truly learn from the Father is in His Word which begins with the Torah. And you do not come to the Master to be taught but instead you go to your mother church and her writings, judgments, decrees, dogmas, and anathemas. And when someone quotes the Testimony of the Master you recoil by saying that they do not have the authority to interpret the scripture. It does not take any interpreting to understand what I have posted and quoted above from the Testimony of the Messiah: the reality is clear, you do not come to the Master because you have not heard anything from the Father. You therefore exalt yourself and your mother church and her teachings against the Testimony of the Messiah; and that, as I said, is one of the worst forms of pride, for not only do you do that but you have exalted yourself against those who believe that Testimony of the Master right here in this thread, even calling them idiots, in clear opposition to the Testimony of the Master in Matthew 5:22. Sorry for your left-hand billy goat luck but your mother church and Pope are not God.

I know that. I never said otherwise. Sacred Scripture says that the Word of God became flesh; that's the Lord Jesus. And He told His future Apostles:

when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

And this He said only to them, as the context bears out. He didn't say it to any of us, we were not there with Him when He uttered this; He was promising His Apostles something, or rather, that Someone would do something. The Holy Spirit ensured that everything that the Apostles taught on matters of faith and morals is infallibly true. The Church is founded upon the Twelve. The Lord Jesus built His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.

 

[Nihilo]

Your non-recollection of conversations we have had is not my problem. :nono:

I never said or implied otherwise. :idunno:

(And it sure seems all too convenient for you in your present predicament).

I'm not in a predicament. :idunno:

 

[daqq]

I'm not in a predicament. :idunno:

Lol, of course you do not believe you are in a predicament, for you believe your mother church gives you the right to blaspheme the Testimony of the Messiah and take the name of the Father in vain. When you disrespect the Testimony of the Messiah and trample it, you trample his very blood, because it is the Spirit of Grace which is the Testimony of the Messiah, (and he plainly tells you that his words are SPIRIT and LIFE). And when you claim the name of Messiah, and claim to represent the Almighty Father, and then proceed to go about disrespecting the Testimony of His Son in the Gospel accounts, (for instance, like when you call other believers "idiots", which is no different from "raca" or "fool"), you blatantly and openly take the name of the Father in vain.

 

[Nihilo]

Lol, of course you do not believe you are in a predicament, for you believe your mother church gives you the right to blaspheme the Testimony of the Messiah and take the name of the Father in vain. When you disrespect the Testimony of the Messiah and trample it, you trample his very blood, because it is the Spirit of Grace which is the Testimony of the Messiah, (and he plainly tells you that his words are SPIRIT and LIFE). And when you claim the name of Messiah, and claim to represent the Almighty Father, and then proceed to go about disrespecting the Testimony of His Son in the Gospel accounts, (for instance, like when you call other believers "idiots", which is no different from "raca" or "fool"), you blatantly and openly take the name of the Father in vain.

I will stop calling you an idiot, when you stop acting like an idiot; guaranteed. Until then, it would only be me being merciful to you, if I hold my tongue.

 

[daqq]

I will stop calling you an idiot, when you stop acting like an idiot; guaranteed. Until then, it would only be me being merciful to you, if I hold my tongue.

Lol, there you go again disrespecting the Testimony of the one you claim to be Almighty God whom you supposedly claim to worship. You just called me an idiot again, and you blaspheme the Testimony of Messiah which has already been quoted to you on multiple occasions, whether you admit to remembering those occasions or not. You take the name of the Father in vain when you speak against the Testimony of the Master as you do; for when you disrespect the Testimony of the Messiah and trample it, you trample his very blood, because it is the Spirit of Grace which is the Testimony, and he plainly tells you that his words are SPIRIT and LIFE. And when you claim the name of Messiah, and claim to represent the Almighty Father, and then proceed to go about disrespecting the Testimony of His Son in the Gospel accounts, calling another believer an "idiot", (which is no different from "raca", or "fool", which is moros in Matthew 5:22, and exactly where "moron" comes from), you blatantly and openly take the name of the Father in vain because you disrespect and trample the Word, His Son.

Matthew 5:22 KJV
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, [G3474 μωρός] shall be in danger of hell fire.

G3474 μωρός moros (mō-ros') adj.
1. dull-witted, foolish, mentally slow (as if shut up), i.e. heedless.
2. (apparently) absurd.
[probably from the base of G3466]
KJV: fool(-ish, X -ishness)

You are a blasphemer and denier of the Testimony of Messiah: and every time you trample his holy Testimony, you trample his blood which is the Spirit of Grace. And in so doing you prove by your own words and deeds that you have no control over your own "members" of your own household; for the natural and carnal man, the old man prince of the power of the air and spirit of the world, cannot please Elohim, neither can he tame his own tongue, that little member of his household which is kindled by the fire of Gehenna, (James 3:1-10). And the reason you cannot tame your own tongue is because the same natural man spirit of the world is still in charge, ruling over your household, and you therefore prove by your own words and deeds, like others already previously in this thread, that you are not "in Messiah" but rather "in" something or someone else. And the veil that is over your heart, mind, and eyes, when you read the Torah, will not be removed until you repent and turn your heart back toward the Father, for that veil is only removed "IN MESSIAH", which you are clearly not, because you are in direct opposition to his Testimony which is tantamount to his very blood. You prove by your own blasphemies against the Testimony of the Messiah that you are only "in" your Popes, and your mother church goddess, who will not be there to "save" you in your end.

 

[Nihilo]

You align yourself with Sacred Scripture's own authority, mentally. When other [sic] challenge your explanation of Sacred Scripture, you react as if we are against Sacred Scripture. When we call you names, you take it as we are calling Sacred Scripture names. We accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, we reject your authority to explain it. We believe Sacred Scripture, we don't believe you.

. . .

Lol, there you go again disrespecting the Testimony of the one you claim to be Almighty God whom you supposedly claim to worship. You just called me an idiot again, and you blaspheme the Testimony of Messiah which has already been quoted to you on multiple occasions, whether you admit to remembering those occasions or not. You take the name of the Father in vain when you speak against the Testimony of the Master as you do; for when you disrespect the Testimony of the Messiah and trample it, you trample his very blood, because it is the Spirit of Grace which is the Testimony, and he plainly tells you that his words are SPIRIT and LIFE. And when you claim the name of Messiah, and claim to represent the Almighty Father, and then proceed to go about disrespecting the Testimony of His Son in the Gospel accounts, calling another believer an "idiot", (which is no different from "raca", or "fool", which is moros in Matthew 5:22, and exactly where "moron" comes from), you blatantly and openly take the name of the Father in vain because you disrespect and trample the Word, His Son.

Matthew 5:22 KJV
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, [G3474 μωρός] shall be in danger of hell fire.

G3474 μωρός moros (mō-ros') adj.
1. dull-witted, foolish, mentally slow (as if shut up), i.e. heedless.
2. (apparently) absurd.
[probably from the base of G3466]
KJV: fool(-ish, X -ishness)

You are a blasphemer and denier of the Testimony of Messiah: and every time you trample his holy Testimony, you trample his blood which is the Spirit of Grace. And in so doing you prove by your own words and deeds that you have no control over your own "members" of your own household; for the natural and carnal man, the old man prince of the power of the air and spirit of the world, cannot please Elohim, neither can he tame his own tongue, that little member of his household which is kindled by the fire of Gehenna, (James 3:1-10). And the reason you cannot tame your own tongue is because the same natural man spirit of the world is still in charge, ruling over your household, and you therefore prove by your own words and deeds, like others already previously in this thread, that you are not "in Messiah" but rather "in" something or someone else. And the veil that is over your heart, mind, and eyes, when you read the Torah, will not be removed until you repent and turn your heart back toward the Father, for that veil is only removed "IN MESSIAH", which you are clearly not, because you are in direct opposition to his Testimony which is tantamount to his very blood. You prove by your own blasphemies against the Testimony of the Messiah that you are only "in" your Popes, and your mother church goddess, who will not be there to "save" you in your end.

You align yourself with Sacred Scripture's own authority, mentally. When [others] challenge your explanation of Sacred Scripture, you react as if we are against Sacred Scripture. When we call you names, you take it as we are calling Sacred Scripture names. We accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, we reject your authority to explain it. We believe Sacred Scripture, we don't believe you.

:idunno:

 

[freelight]

Enjoy the shade of your own shroom!

Enjoy the shade of your own shroom!

The rebuke to the crass stupidity of so many centuries of theological scholarship, great and incredible as it really is, will be as nothing in comparison with the fatality of the blow which it will administer to the basic tenets of the Christian faith. It will demonstrate that Christianity was originated in ignorance and was exploited and perpetuated by ignorance. A writer of obvious high status, Allan Upward, actually was impelled on the evidence to write that Christianity has the unenviable distinction of being perhaps the only religion that was founded completely on the fraudulent exploitation of false premises. The fine Swedish scholar, Georg Brandes, published a book entitled Jesus a Myth. Some forty years or more ago a coterie of capable investigators, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith of Tulane University, Arthur Drews in Germany, Dupuis in France, and others, put out books aiming to present the case for the allegorical interpretation of the Gospels and other Biblical books. The famous work of D. F. Strauss, published in 1835, The Life of Jesus, advanced the same thesis and threw the theological world into a stir of excited controversy. Renan’s equally famous Life of Jesus further embroiled the situation in turmoil. Possibly a hundred scholars of great learning have been led by their studies and researches to put out books questioning and many overtly denying the existence of the historical Jesus (sugar pill) of Nazareth. Their aggressive essays have carried sufficient weight of data and argument to have elicited books 4 from the orthodox ecclesiastical side in efforts at refutation. And in reading these one really begins to be aware of the want of solid evidence, or even of convincing argumentative material to assure us of the historical authenticity of the Gospels. The case against the historical truth of the New Testament grows ever stronger, its defense grows ever less convincing. And in our own day we have a declaration from an authority within the Christian scholastic ranks whose utterance can not fail to command both attention and respect from all parties. Dr. Albert Schweitzer is justly rated as among the most eminent theologians of the Christian Church. His statement is put forth near the end of a work which demonstrates to any reader the stupendous range and thoroughness of its author’s survey of the whole field of literary criticism of the New Testament. Indeed his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, stands as unquestionably the most searching, as well as the most perspicacious, work ever produced on this vast and complicated subject. We give his declaration for its startling significance and the weight of its incontestable authority. Taken from page 398 of his book, it reads thus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb.
\
No wonder the christian hierarchy try's to side track its converts by pointing at boogy men and cultic rabbit trails so as to deflect them from looking into their history from all angles.

On a symbolic level, much is mythos anyways, the symbolism of language that carries the mind into that realm of religious meaning, ethic and principle, including all universal truths, conceptual models and figures.

Hence, on that 'meta' level,...whether a 'story' is actually 'historical' or 'myth' (subject to debate),... what is being 'translated' or 'communicated' is what matters. All types, images and shadows mirror some subject, theme, idea, precept, conceptually speaking, so that the 'kingdom' or realm of Spirit is ALWAYS 'within' meaning perceived, known or experienced 'subjectively', and that is the 'object' as it were of 'language' - 'God' is ever beyond words, space, time, but involves and evolves Himself THRU language, space and time

Only One IS.....yet the logos of Spirit has many different dialects thru which it speaks, but it is the same Creative Spirit, Infinite Intelligence thru-out. Spirit is indivisible, only differentiating in form and appearance.

Hence, we mystic mavericks have a wonderful time indulging our 'gnosis', then painting our own stories on canvas which is but Spirit creatively expressing and experiencing thru individual life-streams, since we are all the offspring of the INFINITE. Every soul is an individual expression of Spirit, from which it could never be seperate from or outside of...seeing the reality of OMNIPRESENCE.

Spirit Alone is LIFE.

 

[daqq]

On a symbolic level, much is mythos anyways, the symbolism of language that carries the mind into that realm of religious meaning, ethic and principle, including all universal truths, conceptual models and figures.

Hence, on that 'meta' level,...whether a 'story' is actually 'historical' or 'myth' (subject to debate),... what is being 'translated' or 'communicated' is what matters. All types, images and shadows mirror some subject, theme, idea, precept, conceptually speaking, so that the 'kingdom' or realm of Spirit is ALWAYS 'within' meaning perceived, known or experienced 'subjectively', and that is the 'object' as it were of 'language' - 'God' is ever beyond words, space, time, but involves and evolves Himself THRU language, space and time

Only One IS.....yet the logos of Spirit has many different dialects thru which it speaks, but it is the same Creative Spirit, Infinite Intelligence thru-out. Spirit is indivisible, only differentiating in form and appearance.

Hence, we mystic mavericks have a wonderful time indulging our 'gnosis', then painting our own stories on canvas which is but Spirit creatively expressing and experiencing thru individual life-streams, since we are all the offspring of the INFINITE. Every soul is an individual expression of Spirit, from which it could never be seperate from or outside of...seeing the reality of OMNIPRESENCE.

Spirit Alone is LIFE.

Agreeable, though the "context" here, in a forum such as this, overall, is the scripture, one should not think that God does not exist anywhere outside of this context. Even the Pharisees taught many of the same things found in the teachings of the Master in the Gospel accounts. Spiritual truths are found all over creation; even within the natural creation itself. One can take a caterpillar-to-butterfly and see in that process new birth and resurrection. Behold, the carcass of the cocoon is left behind, and it is empty!

 

[Nihilo]

Agreeable, though the "context" here, in a forum such as this, overall, is the scripture, one should not think that God does not exist anywhere outside of this context. Even the Pharisees taught many of the same things found in the teachings of the Master in the Gospel accounts. Spiritual truths are found all over creation; even within the natural creation itself. One can take a caterpillar-to-butterfly and see in that process new birth and resurrection. Behold, the carcass of the cocoon is left behind, and it is empty!

The organism itself never actually ceased to live. Metamorphosis is not resurrection. The Lord Jesus physically died and was buried, and HE IS RISEN means that He rose from the dead, not like a butterfly from a cocoon.

 

[daqq]

The organism itself never actually ceased to live. Metamorphosis is not resurrection. The Lord Jesus physically died and was buried, and HE IS RISEN means that He rose from the dead, not like a butterfly from a cocoon.

Amazing how you will argue about everything you know nothing about. If you are not transformed in this life cycle you are not "resurrected", and if you leave this life cycle without having been transformed-resurrected it will be too late; this is all found in the Testimony of the Messiah whom you claim to know and worship, and likewise in the writings of Paul whose words you claim to believe and follow: why have your mother church and your Pope fathers not taught you these things? Have you not noticed that every time you try to say something with authority to me you get burned by the scripture? Have you not noticed at the same time that whenever I say something with authority to you it is upon the authority of the scripture and you still get burned in the end? I also know what I am saying here, and it is by the authority of the scripture, but since I have explained these things already in many other places around here, and since you are a hatemonger who does not care what the scripture actually says anyways; I have no compulsion to explain anymore to you why things are the way they are. But for the same reason which I have already related herein, Paul likewise warns you to "sow unto-toward the Spirit", for in so doing you are sowing toward a spiritual body, and make no mistake, in the end you will reap what you sow. And this transformation is a metamorphosis, a metatithemi, and a metathesis, (just as it is written of Enoch in Heb 11:5), putting on Messiah, putting on LIFE, so that mortality and death should be swallowed up, (or dissolved), by and with LIFE, (2Cor 5:1-4).

 

[freelight]

Cherry Pickers.......

Cherry Pickers.......

The scriptures testify to, and of the Church; there's what we imagine as we study Sacred Scripture, and then there's the outwardly obvious, externally discerned, organizational hierarchy, of the Church; the Church mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

There's got to be something better than what I can dream up from studying the Bible. I look around, survey the physical landscape, there's an ancient organization; claims to be the "Church" from the Christian Bible. I study the scriptures, and I study the scriptures; ten times at least (Scripture scholars study it 100-1000 times or more), but I think something like a legit three times, a fairly legit in my mind 10-50 times, and then in an unlikely possibility, I study it constantly, and the value of the number of times I've studied the scriptures no longer has any meaning because of the constant and unending nature of my study of Sacred Scripture; but three times anyway legitimately.

The Catholic Church is better than the best I've got, from all my study of Sacred Scripture, as a Protestant.
I do know that now.
I don't recall that. I recall at best confusion regarding the matter. We were embroiled in a to my mind heated discussion with @freelight about something, and I remember you kept siding with them over me, even though they do not believe HE IS RISEN, and you do.
HE IS RISEN wasn't uttered by the Master, Daqq; it'd only be normal to not treat those words as importantly as those actually uttered by the Lord Jesus; during His earthly ministry, and after He ascended, when He spoke to the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John. But He didn't say HE IS RISEN. HE IS RISEN is said by others.

The RCC would like to think it owns the mushroom farm, but it doesnt. The garden of the Lord abounds for all to enjoy its many fruits

 

[freelight]

Nitpicking like any-bodies business

Nitpicking like any-bodies business

The organism itself never actually ceased to live. Metamorphosis is not resurrection. The Lord Jesus physically died and was buried, and HE IS RISEN means that He rose from the dead, not like a butterfly from a cocoon.

Jesus 'rising from the dead', is still figurative, and is a kind of 'trans-formation'. Remember, the carnal body is sown into the ground, then it rises as a spiritual body, which has immortality-potential). So, in 'resurrection' there is surely a kind of 'transformation',...the catipillar wraps itself into a cacoon, transforms...... then rises to emerge a beautiful butterfly,...again, we certainly could apply the metaphor

Sure,...."he is risen",....again,...subjectively interpreted, of course. Nail it to a point in time, as a true historical event (or whatever).. .you still have to 'interpret' it in any given or applied context, and especially if it is in anyway analogous to our own resurrection,....a prototypal or archetypal pattern of 'transformation'. The physical body is sown into the ground, it disintegrates,...while the soul arises in its spiritual form, a newly integrated FORM. Paul's description even defies some common traditional assumptions of 'bodily' resurrection...since it is clear the resurrection is 'SPIRITUAL' (O the gnostic heresy! lol)

Now we can quibble over 'metaphysics' here, and split hairs over 'atoms', but its all about a 'transformation', the old form dies, and a new form EMERGES.

 

[daqq]

Jesus 'rising from the dead', is still figurative, and is a kind of 'trans-formation'. Remember, the carnal body is sown into the ground, then it rises as a spiritual body, which has immortality-potential). So, in 'resurrection' there is surely a kind of 'transformation',...the catipillar wraps itself into a cacoon, transforms...... then rises to emerge a beautiful butterfly,...again, we certainly could apply the metaphor

Sure,...."he is risen",....again,...subjectively interpreted, of course. Nail it to a point in time, as a true historical event (or whatever).. .you still have to 'interpret' it in any given or applied context, and especially if it is in anyway analogous to our own resurrection,....a prototypal or archetypal pattern of 'transformation'. The physical body is sown into the ground, it disintegrates,...while the soul arises in its spiritual form, a newly integrated FORM. Paul's description even defies some common traditional assumptions of 'bodily' resurrection...since it is clear the resurrection is 'SPIRITUAL' (O the gnostic heresy! lol)

Now we can quibble over 'metaphysics' here, and split hairs over 'atoms', but its all about a 'transformation', the old form dies, and a new form EMERGES.

"Oh, the Gnostic heresy of it all! (lol), Seeds falling to the ground and dying!"
"Gog, the caterpillar king, dying and turning into a butterfly!" :chuckle:

 

[oatmeal]

We are to be sober minded.

People are lead away from God with drugs.