Nathan_Jr

Sorry for the confusion. I assure you, we are on the same page. As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear a glove. Mmmph.

The question is: What is the difference between a duck? Most people say, between a duck and what? Those people don’t understand the question. Waysider understands perfectly. He answered with a mathematical accuracy and a scientific precision not know since…

Don’t overthink this.

This reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges between Hitch and a zealot…

Is that like asking: What’s the difference between a duck?

Oh, those words are attributed to Jesus? (I admit to not reading The Apocalypse of John of Patmos carefully enough.) Who says the Nazarene said? John of Patmos? Let me guess, he had a vision. Riiiiight…

Says who? Pleasing unto which lord? Plus, to/for. ThIs was written TO the angel of the ekklesia in Laodicea. It was not written TO you.

Thanks, Socks. The root Sbq is shared between Hebrew and Aramaic. It could mean kept/spared/permit/forgive/leave/abandon... Hebrew and Aramaic are very close siblings in the Semitic family. The transliterated Aramaic phrase in the gospels is identical to the transliterated Hebrew of the exact same phrase in the OT. Psalm 22 is the reference. Jesus' cry in Aramaic is a direct quote of the of Psalm 22:1. Virtually every detail described in Mark's passion narrative is found in the following verses. It's as if the evangelist had on his lap while composing his gospel an unfurled scroll of the psalm. (Candidate for Fourth Man sermon?) The "why...?" is rhetorical. It's not a declaration of God's abandonment. The cry is urging the crowd to continue singing the rest of the hymn, which is vindicating and triumphant at the end. Really, a beautiful and powerful psalm! So it seems to me. And others. I didn't come up with it on my own. It seems so simple - like a well-tailored glove. TWI seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist for the sake of novelty. A real stretch. But, hey, I didn't write the book. There's more, but for now, that's it. Thanks for clarifying TWI's position, Socks. I'm sure others have a take on this...

Yep. I think that was the point Waysider was making earlier. A good point.

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-hock.html With a wave of his hand Jesus strikes down that tattletale kid, everyone freaks, but he ultimately straightens that kid out and everything is cool in the end. I love this story!

Some consider the story of Jesus casting demons into pigs causing the death of 2000 valuable livestock near the Sea of Galilee, where people were likely living hand-to-mouth, a historical record. The same will not consider the story of Jesus animating clay sparrows to life part of the historical record. Both are fantastically weird and awesome stories! But historical records?

Not at all, unless you consider sorcery a good thing. But some call it a record, to your point.

Here are two “records” of magic, sorcery, or, if preferred, miracles, performed by Jesus. Which one is fiction? By what standard? When this boy, Jesus, was five years old, he was playing at the ford of a rushing stream. He was collecting the flowing water into ponds and made the water instantly pure. He did this with a single command. He then made soft clay and shaped it into twelve sparrows. He did this on the sabbath day, and many other boys were playing with him. But when a Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the sabbath day, he immediately went off and told Joseph, Jesus' father: "See here, your boy is at the ford and has taken mud and fashioned twelve birds with it, and so has violated the sabbath." So Joseph went there, and as soon as he spotted him he shouted, "Why are you doing what's not permitted on the sabbath?" But Jesus simply clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows: "Be off, fly away, and remembe' me, you who are now alive!" And the sparrows took off and flew away noisily. The Jews watched with amazement, then left the scene to report to their leaders what they had seen Jesus doing. ……………. Jesus asks the demon for his name and is told, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” The demons beg Jesus not to send them away, but instead to send them into the pigs on a nearby hillside, which he does. The herd, about two thousand in number, rush down the steep bank into the sea and are drowned.

How does TWI's doctrinal glove of a spared Jesus on the cross fit the Christian hand of Christ crucified? What is their logic? How do they MAKE the errant Lamsa translation fit? From what do they claim Jesus was spared? Certainly not torture and execution. And how should one believe God raised Jesus from the dead if he was spared death?

I should know the answer to my own question by now, but… Really? Or are you joking?

Damn, this rocks me every time. I know you've mentioned this before, but I can't remember if your roommate was in FL with you.

Mmmph

Yes. Let it be split. Keep it in About the Way and title new thread "LCDIAZ WC 17."

Brandon is the Mind Shift pod host. Oldies was replying to Charity’s post referencing Brandon.

Probably not, but I could pretend for sake of discussion. You might need to define what you mean by God.

It’s sarcasm. Perhaps I misquoted victor.

Trying to understand. Spirits? Spirit beings? Like ghosts? Or devil spirits?

And this is the implication of Oldies’ question.

Seems like Diaz didn’t wait for the green light, which explains the wreck. Also, common sense, the least God expects. Additionally, he may not be as fluent in glossolalia as he thinks, further accounting for the derailment and crash.

Good question. Short answer, not necessarily. I don't think being atheist precludes one from accessing or perceiving the spiritual (best word available at the moment) or mystical. I've been thinking about this lately. How could I describe my position for the sake of dialogue and understanding? The labels are poorly tailored gloves. Technically, I'm atheist. I don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Isis, Baal, Yahweh, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of gods that man has believed in as fervently as you do your god. And, as I may or may not have made clear, I don't believe in belief. All nontheists are atheists, but not all atheists are nontheists. (I think that's right.) For my position, nontheist is also technically correct and may be more accurate. There's probably a spectrum with this one. One might argue Christians can be nontheistic - Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton, both Catholic monks, come to mind. Then there's pantheism and panentheism. Those may also fit in the spectrum. I would consider Taoism and Buddhism to be atheistic/nontheistic.