Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT)Nevile,...Excerpts:.................
"The short and to the point answer to your question(ing) is that my denial of the crucifixion being God's will comes from Hosea 6:6."
8888888888888888888888888888888888888"..........................What you either do not appreciate or, more likely, you are trying to open up is the fact that my acceptance or rejection of scriptural writings is not at the book or chapter level, nor even at the verse level, but at the individual word level.
For example, you may have noticed that I did not quote 'Jesus' as saying "Get behind me, Satan," but rather, "Get behind me." This is because I advocate that we have to understand what it is that is being said, not take the translated words as God-breathed and therefore needing to be understood at the word, phrase, sentence, verse, chapter, book and Bible levels."
But this is the crux of the point I am trying to get at ...How do you know that the words you pick are the right ones....without an authoritiy external of your head how can you be sure you are not being decived into picking and choosing scriptures just as satan attempted to do with Jesus on the Mt? What assurance do you have except your own feelings that you are right?.....I understand what you are saying it just i dont see how you can valaidate your posistion external of "you feel"......That is not a method of validation exemplified in any of the scriptures that you either accept or reject.....In fact the only validation method exemplified even with the false prophets/even satan himself as it relates to scripture was to miss use scripture.....The same scriptures you are either accepting or rejecting at any given time.......AllenHello Allen,
So you know where I am coming from, I should tell you that I discarded the New Testament because Paul's writings contradicted the Torah. In other words, I believed that the Jewish race were indeed God's "chosen people" (you may remember that I have in the past prohibited members of forums that I control to speak ill of the Jews and/or "Israel").
It was only then that I began to seriously study Judaism and found it to be completely contrary to the Father I have come to know to a modest degree.
Then I went back to the New Testament and reinstated those teachings that are not placed in there to promote astrology or the claim that the Jews are precious in God's sight.
Then (albeit over-simplistically) I arrive at such understanding of the good and bad tree that you question. Also, things like, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," and so on.
I hope that this provides a slightly fuller picture.-----Original Message-----
Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:46:32 +1000
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Every duty had its own own bugle call
"Even 'Jesus' had this (remember when he says "Get behind me," which can not have been addressed to Peter because a) Peter was already behind him and b) Peter was not called Satan)." Neville.
It seems to me Neville that your choosing this passage was rather providential for you if you can but see it. Let us examine it in context , and compare it with your interpretation.
23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
It is obvious that he was addressing Peter, and inferring that it was Satan in him that caused Peter to say the objectionable thing, "Lord, be it far from thee, this (the passion) shall not be unto thee. "
Intimating that the crucifixion was an essential part of Gods will, for he followed up with,
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
and this most telling line which in essence explains away your objection to the vengeance of God.
25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
Philip.----- Original Message -----From: Neville JonesSent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 5:27 AMSubject: [geocentrism] Re: Every duty had its own own bugle call-----Original Message-----
No virus found in this incoming message.From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:59:06 +1000Neville said,So whatever catastrophe occurred, had to be man-made. There was no Noah's Ark. Otherwise our Father would be tarred with the same vile brush that tars the Ezraelites. The father of the Ezraelites is the Devil, as Christ told them plainly, and the works of their father they do. The god of the Old Testament/Torah/Talmud is the Devil.
I am waking up to my bugle call. A little late, perhaps, but better late than never!!
But Neville we all have this human feeling of horror about what appears to be Gods inhuman treatment of humans.
It seems to me Philip, that we each have a light side and a dark side, or good side and bad side if you like. Even 'Jesus' had this (remember when he says "Get behind me," which can not have been addressed to Peter because a) Peter was already behind him and b) Peter was not called Satan). And we each have a battle within ourselves between these two opposite aspects of our very essence.
What I propose is that God is purely light and the Devil is purely dark. This, I believe, is what the light and dark of Genesis Chapter 1 is all about. The perrenial struggle between good and evil.
It therefore follows that God could not, simply could not, do what is attributed to the god of the Old Testament. A good tree does not bring forth bad fruit, by its very definition.Have you not considered the way we commonly accept and understand it? To God the entire history of the world to its consumation is the spark off a blacksmiths anvil, compared to eternity.God is not human. Jesus yes, but He has the same omnipotence and omniprescience as the Father. What is any form of suffering, even if continuous for a lifetime of years compared to eternity. Yet you find intolerable a few hours of violence. Of course its man made, or caused, even if the direct hand of God is involved.
The fact that suffering, cruelty, poverty, injustice, etc., are man-made I agree with entirely; it is the laying of blame at our Father's door that I find unacceptable - making our Father the scapegoat for what men (and women) have done.God knows the whole picture, and you endanger your soul by denying Him that right, by trying to impose or limit Him to human intelligence or reason, even human justice.
I accept that if I am wrong, then I am the one who will answer for it. But, by exactly the same argument, you may have to justify your acceptance of God telling the Jews to go and slaughter countless more of their "enemies." Indeed, why would our Father do this? Has it made the lives of the "chosen ones" any easier? Why do it then? Is there not going to be a "Judgement Day"? So why not judge their "enemies" then?In short, if you understood the metaphysical implications of the crucifixion, the eternal sacrifice, that no ordinary man could sustain, yet was accepted by the man God Jesus, as reparation for the offences of all mankind, then the horror that you and I feel at these skirmishes , Dresden, Palestine, et al are minor. Keep in mind, these people have rejected God. If innocent children die by the sword, and inherit eternal life, I do not think they will complain, but rather thank God for taking out their parents in time. As indeed the Jews.Their suffering is yet to come.
I deny the crucifixion, just as I deny ALL sacrifice. Our Father will have mercy, and not sacrifice.
No one has "paid" for what I have done wrong. I will have to answer for it. And you will have to answer for your errors. Let's lay the blame at our own doors. Our Father is goodness and truth, and will not justify evil-doers (by sacrifice or otherwise).Eternal life is not free. The saints embraced suffering.Philip.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1319 - Release Date: 8/03/2008 10:14 AM