Nathan_Jr

I don’t know.

Ha! But Jim Caviezel is not quite as white as that image of Jesus hanging on the wall of the set of PFAL.

The following scholars are HISTORIANS specializing in early Christianity, Second Temple Judaism, and/or the Ancient Near East. This is a small sampling. Though they publish very serious, dense scholarly works, they also publish trade books that are accessible to non-scholars. They are all real Doctors, and they all have faith in some kind of Judeo-Christian tradition, except Ehrman, who is agnostic-atheist. I'd recommend starting with Ehrman. His writing style is extremely lucid and accessible. Bart D. Ehrman Elaine Pagels James D. Tabor Paula Fredikson John Dominic Crossan And if you are interested in finding meaning across other traditions and texts, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, check out Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth - Christ Jesus is included in his survey. **Ehrman, Pagels and Tabor were conservative, fundamentalist evangelicals in their youth.

Psychedelics can be extremely effective in this way. Your experience is quite common. Though, I suspect many don't try to understand the "bad trip" by going into it and reflecting on it. The anxiety and dissonance is clutching to the ego that is trying to die; reaching for Jesus Christ is the submission to the ego death, the letting go of identification with ego, and the new identification with God - a rebirth. Not everyone gets this. I'm not saying psychedelics are a pathway to Christ, but they can help jolt you awake from the malaise of "old man" thinking. All I'm saying is the greatest rewards come out of the hardest work through the darkest places, which is what you were saying, I think. The bad trip is worth it. Great post all around. Thanks.

He actually already did in a response to me about 11 hrs ago. It seems the answer to your question is "yes," but it's not the Bible, apparently.... WTAF am I saying!!! My head is about to explode with this word salad! Mike: "I mentioned that the phrase "the Bible" is very ambiguous.| Before I can answer this I you need to specify what you mean EXACTLY for every occurance of the word Bible in your post, before I can answer it in a timely manner. Otherwise I will have to ask you for each one what you mean. */*/*/*/* We started this in a specific section of doctrine and now it is had drifted a bit. Let's start all over for a minute, going back to how the Word originally got here. God found a man who could hear Him due to diligently seeking Him. What God spoke to this man is the Word. That man tells others in love. Eventually, the man to whom God spoke tells others in written form. These kinds of writings accumulate over time. Young Jesus feeds off them. He learns them well, and then perfectly, and then shows us the Father as we see him. He is the Word made flesh. Now we get to do the same, and God will help us. It is a matter of WHO do you love. If you seek the Word of God with all your heart, then act on it. Minister what you know to others in love, like Jesus did. God will help you. Good night, sir."

Logic: The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God replaces the absent Christ. THEREFORE, the Bible replaces the absent Christ. Or, Is holy spirit or the great mystery the Word that replaces the absent Christ, therefore, replaces the Bible?

What is the Word that replaces the absent Christ? Apparently this is a very difficult and complex question! (The Logos of the opening chapter in John is complex, esoteric, but that's not the Word I'm asking about. Unless it is, and I just don't know it yet.)

Right. So, I let you cut through the ambiguity of "the Bible" and establish a definition when I asked, simply: What is the Word? My response to your answer: "I'm really trying to get down to it. I feel like I've been asking some simple questions. Some open, but many closed. I'm really trying to be direct. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I get this wrong. Please do. So, the Word is NOT the Bible, nor in the Bible. The Word is NOT PFAL, collaterals, critical texts, etc., nor in those. The Word is NOT something there automatically. The Word is created in the mind - a product of thought. Very simply: The Word is the content of a conditioned mind? The content built by programming through research of the Bible, which is not itself the Word? The Word is built in the mind through quasi-academic research? It doesn't exist on its own. It's something constructed in the mind? So, when victor says, "The word, the word, and nothing but the word," he could have just as accurately said, "The contents of your indoctrinated mind, the contents of your indoctrinated mind, and nothing but the contents of your indoctrinated mind!" Or, "The word of god is the will of god." = "Your conditioned mind trained according to these research principles is the will of god." Or, "Study the word much." = "Study your conditioned mind much." Simple. Keep it simple. Direct. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is the above what you mean?" ======== THEN you clarified. It sounds like the Word is scripture. But not the Bible? Where do I find the Word to study it? Didn't victor open PFAL with something like: The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the Word of God? I'm paraphrasing.

Please answer my questions about the Word.

Word salad? It sounds like the Word that replaces the absent Christ is an opinion formulated in the mind through "research." A pretty flimsy replacement for Christ.

I'm really trying to get down to it. I feel like I've been asking some simple questions. Some open, but many closed. I'm really trying to be direct. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I get this wrong. Please do. So, the Word is NOT the Bible, nor in the Bible. The Word is NOT PFAL, collaterals, critical texts, etc., nor in those. The Word is NOT something there automatically. The Word is created in the mind - a product of thought. Very simply: The Word is the content of a conditioned mind? The content built by programming through research of the Bible, which is not itself the Word? The Word is built in the mind through quasi-academic research? It doesn't exist on its own. It's something constructed in the mind? So, when victor says, "The word, the word, and nothing but the word," he could have just as accurately said, "The contents of your indoctrinated mind, the contents of your indoctrinated mind, and nothing but the contents of your indoctrinated mind!" Or, "The word of god is the will of god." = "Your conditioned mind trained according to these research principles is the will of god." Or, "Study the word much." = "Study your conditioned mind much." Simple. Keep it simple. Direct. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is the above what you mean?

What is the Word?

Todd Snider is so underrated.

So, the Word of God is the Bible as interpreted and corrected back to the original, according to victor? This Word is what Jesus had in his mind before he met John the baptizer? And later, the contents of his mind were accurately revealed in PFAL, collaterals, etc.? This is what replaces Jesus the Christ, who is absent? The contents of his mind, which is the Bible, corrected accurately by victor?

OMG! ROTFLMAO!

So the Word is not the written word. It's not the Bible, it's not a theological commentary, it's not PFAL? It's something in the mind? Something different from the Christ within, the holy spirit.

Waysider, I've learned that if you are pretty sure, I can be pretty sure. HOWEVER, doesn't the Hayflick limit contradict victor's claim that no one dies until one stops believing, and the cessation of believing only comes when one gets too tired to believe anymore?

Allegedly, according to his tombstone, his last narcissistic "poor me" plea, he couldn't be honest, even if he knew to be honest. He could only wish to be honest. I wonder why God didn't reveal to the Christ within victor to reveal to his mind to motivate his walk to be honest?

He did the same thing when Dr. Higgins called him out for preaching like Bullinger wrote. So embarrassed and afraid of being found out as a plagiarizing fraud, he played dumb and presented it all as a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE, one that independently validated his teaching. (Error verified by error?) This is a textbook narcissistic cop out ruse. If anyone believes any of these REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES, please reach out. I've got some property to sell you.

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." So, Christ isn't absent at all. Christ is within. I brought this up very early in this thread. HOWEVER, Jesus, the Nazarene, the anointed, the perfect human being, God's only begotten is obviously absent in the sense that no one could expect to run into him at Starbucks. Sure. I don't think this is the issue. What seems to be missing from this parsing is the subtle nuance of the implications of the proposition: The Word take the place of the absent Christ. (Maybe this should have been phrased more accurately according to mathematical usage: The Word takes the place of Jesus, the Nazarene.) MOREOVER, what is this Word that replaces God's only begotten? Is it the Bible? God's perfect only begotten is replaced with... the Bible? A book put together hundreds of years later by hundreds of editors, redactors, interpolators, scribes? And not rightly divided for another 1000 years when Darby, Bullinger, and victor showed up? victor said the word is the ministry and the ministry is the word. What is this ministry? Obviously, it is The Way International, Inc. Or, is this not obvious?

John Prine?

What kind of man did he know to be? Why couldn't he be this man? Was it his lack of believing faith? Did he spit in the face of revelation when he got it? Or did he just not know how (H-O-W) to get revelation to be the man he knew to be? Or was he too afraid, too full of fear to be that man, whatever that man would be? Why couldn't he just renew his mind to be that man? Did he not know how (H-O-W) to renew his mind?

Thanks, Word Wolf. The KJV is what I was raised on, and I find many of the Elizabethan phrasings spine-shivering in their beauty. Some passages just can't be rendered so exquisitely in any other English idiom. Just knee-bucklingly beautiful! MOREOVER, as an English major, I have a special affinity for that version. With that being said, it is the absolute WORST study Bible, in my opinion. One can use it to study, but one should have a subscription to the OED - extremely useful! So many words in Elizabethan English don't mean today what they did then. Like the word STUDY! I studied French, Spanish and Latin in high school; Latin, Italian and Spanish in college. I'm no expert. Ive forgotten more Latin than most will ever know. I know just enough to know how much I don't know. So, I know something about translation and interpretation of foreign languages. I know that most idioms cannot be translated literally without corrupting the original, intended meaning - hence, the italics. Really, to understand how (H-O-W) the KJV committee made translation decisions and used italics, read the preface. Translation and interpretation is an art and science. I never studied Greek until I took the class. And I still know very little, but I probably know more than victor ever did. And what I don't know, I know how (H-O-W) to find out.