Nathan_Jr

Except when it is. Getting too hung up in man-made technicalities causes one to miss the forest for the trees. This was one of the great stumbling blocks for victor and bullinger. The Mediator, the Advocate... these are functional titles. They are descriptive, they are not mysterious linguistic codes. Now, "at the right hand of God" is, indeed, a figure of speech. These titles and figures of speech are NOT in conflict with each other, nor are they in conflict with "Christ in you." Just because it SEEMS to be mysterious or difficult or ill-fitting a man-made theological proposition, doesn't mean it's any of these. Where is God? Far away on a cloud with a long beard and a lightning bolt? Where is God? Is God near to you? How close is God? Can you measure the distance? Try it. I submit to you if you can measure the distance in inches or feet or miles, that is not God. Is Christ in you? Where is Christ? At God's right hand? Where is God? Is God absent? Where is Christ? Is Christ in you? Is Christ at God's right hand? Is Christ absent? Find out for yourself - no one else can find out for you. Cutting off one's fingers in order to MAKE the hand fit the glove is stupid. If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit; if they don't fit, it is not true to fact that OJ is the murderer. BULL$HIT. Except the gloves DO fit, they are HIS gloves, and he IS the murderer.

Thanks, T-Bone. It's a real dandy. Just tremendous.

What a cool book! Thanks, T-Bone! Do the authors actually use the term "idiom of permission," or is that a Bullinger invention? And does it apply to EVERY (without distinction or exception) action of God in the Hebrew Bible? Does it apply to the Hebrew only? Or also the Greek? According to the authors, should all verbs relating to God be read through this lens? Or only when one needs to make a passage fit a theological proposition? I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?

Wow! Good one! I suspected the Kinks when you said not American. Wouldn't have picked it, even the Kinks were given.

I think Mike's point is it doesn't matter if victor changed because he got a free pass. I'm sure you know, there was never any snow on the gas pumps.

Every verse you cited points to this. Just this. No "class" can lead anyone to this. No dogma. No teacher. No authority. No systematic theology. No funny mathematics. One must find out for one's self. And when does find out, freedom, liberty, power and love abound. I, personally, don't identify as Christian. I don't identify with any particular religion, but I fully understand this. No one taught it to me, no one can. And I don't pretend that I can teach it to anyone else. Thank you for this, Twinky.

Didn't Paul say he got his gospel directly from the Lord, Christ Jesus, who had already ascended? Though Paul quoted (sometimes misquoted) the Septuagint, did he ever say that his interpretation of it through research keys replaced Christ? How can you receive something from an absent source? If Christ was absent when Paul was running the streets, from what or whom did Paul receive his gospel? How can you receive anything if it isn't available? And how can it be available if it's absent? You've got to know what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.

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.