NationStates Jolt Archive

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

Well, it allows for a sequel to be made.

I think it has something to do with the bible being nothing more than just a bunch of fairytales designed to scare people into becoming Christian. I could be wrong though. (I doubt it ;) )

I think it has something to do with the bible being nothing more than just a bunch of fairytales designed to scare people into becoming Christian. I could be wrong though. (I doubt it ;) )
How dare you insult the bible?!?!

Well, it allows for a sequel to be made.
But only when coupled with the final scene of Judas, hanging from a tree, his dead opne palm clenching into a fist before the credits. Oh, and the fact that it said "The End", which then became "The End?". That's what really set it up for a sequel.

Matthew and Luke had a knock down drag out over this very thing. Apparently, as it turns out, Matthew was biting into a very crunchy snack and missed the last bit.

How dare you insult the bible?!?!
It's easy, just open your eyes, get your sense of humor primed up, and just read it. The insults come naturally. ;)

Probably because dying on the cross was incredibly painful and slow, so I could see Jesus saying that just in response to the suffering.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

Maybe as Jesus was suffering and dying on the cross for the sins of mankind, he had a thought:

"This sucks."

So he said, "God, why did you make this suck so much?"

Which would not mean that he didn't know what was going on... just that he was in pain and was otherwise pretty uncomfortable.

It's like when you're stuck in rush hour traffic and you're in a hurry to get somewhere... you knew you wouldn't be able to get there fast, but such foreknowledge does not keep you from screaming/swearing at the slow dupe in front of you for not tailgaiting the person in front of him. "What are you waiting for? Move!"

something like that. He was voicing frustration at how sucky it is to hang there for hours with all of your weight on your wrists and feet, which have (probably rusty and not-too-sharp) nails hammered through them.

Probably because dying on the cross was incredibly painful and slow, so I could see Jesus saying that just in response to the suffering.
Maybe it was a bible edit. Like, in RL, Jesus said something like "For fuck's sake, dad, why don't you just get it over and done with? You could have at least destroyed all my sensory neurones where it hurts, this bloody spear wound is killing me! And...oh, oh that's just great. My last day on Earth and I just shat myself, nailed to a cross, in front of these two guys next to me. Hey, only one of them can see it, hang on...Hey, hey buddy! Yeah, you, I'll sneak you into heaven if you never mention this shit stain to anyone. Yeah, I'm tight with the man upstairs - he's my homeboy. Yeah. We cool? Hang on...hey dad? Let this guy in will you, he's nice really and he repents and shit."

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

did you recently listen to Chop Suey?

Maybe it was a bible edit. Like, in RL, Jesus said something like "For fuck's sake, dad, why don't you just get it over and done with? You could have at least destroyed all my sensory neurones where it hurts, this bloody spear wound is killing me! And...oh, oh that's just great. My last day on Earth and I just shat myself, nailed to a cross, in front of these two guys next to me. Hey, only one of them can see it, hang on...Hey, hey buddy! Yeah, you, I'll sneak you into heaven if you never mention this shit stain to anyone. Yeah, I'm tight with the man upstairs - he's my homeboy. Yeah. We cool? Hang on...hey dad? Let this guy in will you, he's nice really and he repents and shit."
Jesus sounds English.

Matthew 27:45
From noon onward, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. *And about three o' clock, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" Some of the bystanders who heard it said, "This one is calling on Elijah." Immediately one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink. But the rest said, "Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to save him." But Jesus cried out in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

*27, 46: Jesus cries out in the words of Psalm 22, a psalm of lament that is in the Old Testament passage most frequently drawn upon in this narrative. The prophet Elijah, who was brought up into Heaven, is believed to help those in distress.
Gave up his spirit: The Marcan parallel, "breathed his last." Matthew's alteration expresses both Jesus' control over his destiny and his obedient giveing up of his life to God.

did you recently listen to Chop Suey?
Whether or not chop suey had an input here, it has been widely acknowledged that system of a down's lyrics contain theological references, along with anti-government and anti-war ideas.

Or maybe he just listened to chop suey.

Jesus sounds English.
So "Jerusalem" tells me.

OK, so it's a metaphor for suggesting that Christianity can save England from itself or something, but whatever.

Well, it allows for a sequel to be made.
Oh, they planned for one, alright. I believe it's called "the Second Coming", but I prefer "Jesus II: This Time, It's Personal!".

So "Jerusalem" tells me.

OK, so it's a metaphor for suggesting that Christianity can save England from itself or something, but whatever.
Damn Free Masons and their tricks.

did you recently listen to Chop Suey?
Chop Suey? I thought that was some kind of Chinese food.

I heard a theologian on the radio interview program Fresh Air address the subject though.

Whether or not chop suey had an input here, it has been widely acknowledged that system of a down's lyrics contain theological references, along with anti-government and anti-war ideas.

Or maybe he just listened to chop suey.
Oh, shit. System of a down. I didn't put two and two together. Not a huge SOAD fan. They're ok though.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?
One interpretation I heard is that when Jesus took upon him the burden of Sin, (Him being The Blood that Washes My Sin Away) the taint of that Sin was so much, so great that even God, for a brief moment, had to look away.

God did not "Forsake" him as is evident by his Rising 3 days later.

It is because of His Sacrifice, the Faithful no longer need to offer up Burnt offerings to gain Gods Forgiveness.

One interpretation I heard is that when Jesus took upon him the burden of Sin, (Him being The Blood that Washes My Sin Away) the taint of that Sin was so much, so great that even God, for a brief moment, had to look away.

God did not "Forsake" him as is evident by his Rising 3 days later.

It is because of His Sacrifice, the Faithful no longer need to offer up Burnt offerings to gain Gods Forgiveness.
I still burn a goat or a young bull now and then to be on the safe side. Also I worship every god and goddes I've ever heard of. No sense taking chances. If one or more of them exist, I'm covered. If none of them exist, it's no big deal because I steal my sacrificial animals rather than paying for them.

I still burn a goat or a young bull now and then to be on the safe side. Also I worship every god and goddes I've ever heard of. No sense taking chances. If one or more of them exist, I'm covered. If none of them exist, it's no big deal because I steal my sacrificial animals rather than paying for them.
"My wife treats me like a God."
"Really, hows that"
"Every night for dinner she places a burnt offering before me." :D

But Jesus is God right? So he be talking to himself?

But Jesus is God right? So he be talking to himself?
We all talk to ourselves now and then. Hell, half of the posts I make here on NS seem like I'm just talking to myself.

Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God (according to all christian faiths) So its quiet possible he meant both at the time he said them. Also most christian faiths switch between calling God... God and Father "Our Father who art in heaven...." and jesus is the english translation of Hesu I think. And according to christianity there are 3 persons in one God its a mystery of faith and not supposed to be explained. Though my take on it would be God the Father represents God's creativity, the Holy Spirit represents Gods infinite wisdom and wanton to empower man, and God the Son Gods sacrificing and loyal nature (He promised He'd send a reedemer "His only son" and He did)

Probably because dying on the cross was incredibly painful and slow, so I could see Jesus saying that just in response to the suffering.
So, bit off more than he could chew, me thinks.
Note: obvious difference between god and jesus at this point, so that blows that whole god/jesus same guy unity thing. Pretty clearly ... unless, it was an old testament play for vanity and drama, for the witnesses, as few as there were.

so great that even God, for a brief moment, had to look away.
ANOTHER post in favour of a non-omnipotent god.

Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God (according to all christian faiths) So its quiet possible he meant both at the time he said them. Also most christian faiths switch between calling God... God and Father "Our Father who art in heaven...." and jesus is the english translation of Hesu I think. And according to christianity there are 3 persons in one God its a mystery of faith and not supposed to be explained. Though my take on it would be God the Father represents God's creativity, the Holy Spirit represents Gods infinite wisdom and wanton to empower man, and God the Son Gods sacrificing and loyal nature (He promised He'd send a reedemer "His only son" and He did)
Yes Adam wasn't his original son, and no one following him are of the family either, even though Gen goes into great deal to establish lineage and one of the other chapters qualifies the bloodline of Jesus, which is kinda silly if you think about it.

Gave up his spirit: The Marcan parallel, "breathed his last." Matthew's alteration expresses both Jesus' control over his destiny and his obedient giveing up of his life to God.Yes, ANOTHER post disqualifying the idea that god and jesus were the same guy.

Yes, ANOTHER post disqualifying the idea that god and jesus were the same guy.

How does this negate the Trinity?

It is a common fact that jesus himself walks around wearing a "wwcnd" bracelet.

What would Chuck Norris do.

(sry, it had to be done)

Jesus sounds English.

Because Jesus was english. Obviously.

Oh, they planned for one, alright. I believe it's called "the Second Coming", but I prefer "Jesus II: This Time, It's Personal!".

Shameless reference to UHF, but with a twist... nice.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

According to Catholic dogma, Jesus was both human and divine. He struggled with his divinity a lot during the Passion. He prayed so furiously his sweat was mixed with blood (a scientificly explainable phenomenon). When he speaks eloi, eloi, lema sabachtini he is expressing his humanity in fear of death.

And, God is in Jesus, the Spirit, and God himself. Jesus isn't talking to himself, he is talking to God in Heaven.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

The two books were written by different people, meaning there are going to be slight discrepencies. And in Hebrew most of the words have many meanings and can be interpreted many ways. Also the whole "Why have you forsaken me?" Jesus represented sin, God could have nothing to do with sin. So God did forsake him at that point in time.

To deny the trinity is to risk losing salvation

To try and understand the trinity is to risk losing your mind.

To roughly paraphrase St. Augustine.

To deny the trinity is to risk losing salvation

To try and understand the trinity is to risk losing your mind.

To roughly paraphrase St. Augustine.
Well, I've lost both my mind and salvation, so I suppose at some point I understood that I was denying it.
Or something to that effect.

Here is hopefully one way to explain what the first poster wrote (though not in my own words):

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour (line 46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" If Jesus is God, why would He say this?
First of all, Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22:
Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help (line 12). Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me (line 13). They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion (line 14). I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me (line 15). My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death (line 16). For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet (line 17). I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; (line 18) They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
The term 'dogs' was used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles (cf. Matt. 15:21-28). His heart has melted within Him (v. 14). During the crucifixion process, the blood loss causes the heart to beat harder and harder and become extremely fatigued. Dehydration occurs (v. 15). Verses 16b-18 speak of piercing His hands and feet and dividing his clothing by casting lots. This is exactly what happen as described in Matt. 27:35.
Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before Christ was born. At that time, crucifixion had not yet been invented. Actually, the Phoenician's developed it and Rome borrowed the agonizing means of execution from them. So, when Rome ruled over Israel, it became the Roman means of capital punishment imposed upon the Jews whose biblical means of execution was stoning. Nevertheless, Jesus is pointing to the scriptures to substantiate His messianic mission.
A further comment
2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out.
One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater.

Hope this helps.

Was he mumbling? Did anyone listening to him have trouble hearing? How good were the acoustics? I mumble, and I'm half-deaf. People could be saying anything, I dunno what they're saying half the time, and a lot of background noise makes it really tough.

How does this negate the Trinity?
Because you qualified the discernment between them by the quote specifying that jesus was giving his life up to God.
Do you not understand what that means?

According to Catholic dogma, Jesus was both human and divine. He struggled with his divinity a lot during the Passion. He prayed so furiously his sweat was mixed with blood (a scientificly explainable phenomenon). When he speaks eloi, eloi, lema sabachtini he is expressing his humanity in fear of death.

And, God is in Jesus, the Spirit, and God himself. Jesus isn't talking to himself, he is talking to God in Heaven.
Talking to god out loud, with no one to witness what god says, is just rude. He should have done it more discreetly instead of blurting it out like that ... oh wait, is this another schizo episode since he's supposedly the same guy, and he's just acting sh*t out for his audience, as few as there were.

:eek: Ooh, echo.

Also the whole "Why have you forsaken me?" Jesus represented sin, God could have nothing to do with sin. So God did forsake him at that point in time.
Well i gotta call bullsh*t on this.
There are many, MANY different leads of "christianity" that REQUIRE that the point of Jesus' death was the redemption of man AND THEREFORE PART OF THE MASTER PLAN!!!!
And many believe there wasn't any forsaking anyway, since god never left, still being on the cross, and it's pretty bloody unlikely he would let himself get killed by a few nails, a spear, bad hygienal conditions and neglect.
Would you concede that god also allowed itself to be killed, and in the time that jesus was quite obviously dead, so was the god of all creation??????

Because you qualified the discernment between them by the quote specifying that jesus was giving his life up to God.
Do you not understand what that means?

Don't you understand that the Trinity is that God exists one in three parts? He is the Creator known ubiquitously as God, He is God borne of human flesh as Jesus, and He is the spiritual force that touches nad enriches Life as the Holy Spirit.

Don't you understand that the Trinity is that God exists one in three parts? He is the Creator known ubiquitously as God, He is God borne of human flesh as Jesus, and He is the spiritual force that touches nad enriches Life as the Holy Spirit.
I'll tell you that you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
If i were to inebriate myself, i still wouldn't see this as being even remotely rational, but i might just pass it off like i would any other braggart or kook in a bar that had had his neuronal network crosswired a few too many times.
So, if you think you understand it and we don't, then explain how that's even remotely possible (a)using real words and definitions and (b)not just using the bible itself as THE source.
Ineffability will not do here.
If you want to do justice to this idea, then show some kind of evidence of anything other than fantasy to be the matrix of manifestation.

By the way, you do realize that using the term "ubiquitously" means that god is already all-pervasive?
Also, i'll attempt to subdue my snickering at this line ...:
He is the spiritual force that touches nad
I mean, no one should hold that mistake against you, it's the other, more psychologically embedded things that are of concern.

Oh, they planned for one, alright. I believe it's called "the Second Coming", but I prefer "Jesus II: This Time, It's Personal!".


How about "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter".

Im not making this up.

Ive seen it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/

I'll tell you that you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
If i were to inebriate myself, i still wouldn't see this as being even remotely rational, but i might just pass it off like i would any other braggart or kook in a bar that had had his neuronal network crosswired a few too many times.
So, if you think you understand it and we don't, then explain how that's even remotely possible (a)using real words and definitions and (b)not just using the bible itself as THE source.
Ineffability will not do here.
If you want to do justice to this idea, then show some kind of evidence of anything other than fantasy to be the matrix of manifestation.

By the way, you do realize that using the term "ubiquitously" means that god is already all-pervasive?
Also, i'll attempt to subdue my snickering at this line ...:
He is the spiritual force that touches nad
I mean, no one should hold that mistake against you, it's the other, more psychologically embedded things that are of concern.

I apologise for my misuse of words and my incorrect spelling. It's 2:41AM right now and I'm fighting a horrible cold.

I apologise for my misuse of words and my incorrect spelling. It's 2:41AM right now and I'm fighting a horrible cold.
Well, it was funny, but like i said, i won't hold it against you.
I hope ya get better, being sick sucks.
Reply when you have a clear head, as i said it does better justice to your idea.

How about "Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter".

Im not making this up.

Ive seen it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/
Isn't that Dracula 2000?

Isn't that Dracula 2000?


Isnt that the one tha past Dracula off as actually being Judas Ecariot?

Isnt that the one tha past Dracula off as actually being Judas Ecariot?
The SAME!!!
It was an okay idea as long as you didn't read too much into it ... or take too much of it seriously, ya know, change religions or anything ...

*BUMP*
There's at least one unanswered question here that someone should tackle.

Oh, that Trinity thing, right. Well, here's a definition I've read online. I'm sorry, but I didn't bookmark the site, so I can't give a link, my apologies. ^_^
Ahem:

In Genesis, God said, "Let Us make Man in Our image." ?In the plural sense, he is not speaking to the Heavenly Host, but refering to Himself as tripartite (is that a good word to use?). So, let's look at His structure as it transposes to ours. We have a mind, the part of us that cannot be quanitatively defined (I mean in terms not of brain chemistry, but the subtle parts that still elude science) that instructs the other parts of ourselves and coordinates. Our body is the part which, for a time, exists in the physical world, and interacts with other objects within that world (Jesus). Finally, there is the undefinable, the soul, which makes us uniquely us and survives our death. The immortal part which gives us our spiritual power and consciousness (Holy Spirit).

Please remember that this is not my definition, but it was such a uniquely different explanation that it deemed mention.

PS: I'm still sick. If there are typos...I don't care, I'm going to bed:P

Here's another definition of the Trinity that makes great sense to me being a former Catholic who never could understand much of the Christian dogma.

THE TRINITY

Question. -- What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?

Answer. -- The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.

The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.[1]
[1 Cf. "Pantheism," p. 290.]

God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man [1] is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.
[1 The Divine Manifestation.]

Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors -- one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.

It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)

Oh, that Trinity thing, right. Well, here's a definition I've read online. I'm sorry, but I didn't bookmark the site, so I can't give a link, my apologies. ^_^
Ahem:

In Genesis, God said, "Let Us make Man in Our image." ?In the plural sense, he is not speaking to the Heavenly Host, but refering to Himself as tripartite (is that a good word to use?). So, let's look at His structure as it transposes to ours. We have a mind, the part of us that cannot be quanitatively defined (I mean in terms not of brain chemistry, but the subtle parts that still elude science) that instructs the other parts of ourselves and coordinates. Our body is the part which, for a time, exists in the physical world, and interacts with other objects within that world (Jesus). Finally, there is the undefinable, the soul, which makes us uniquely us and survives our death. The immortal part which gives us our spiritual power and consciousness (Holy Spirit).

Please remember that this is not my definition, but it was such a uniquely different explanation that it deemed mention.

PS: I'm still sick. If there are typos...I don't care, I'm going to bed:P
Well, i applaud your effort, but i refer to the part where i specified NOT to use the bible itself as the source. The beginning of your post qualifies the base as Genesis.
To be fair, it's probable that you borrowed from site that basically had someone interpret the bible and then spit it back out, much as does the afternoon lineup of rightwing blowhard "pundits" like Savage, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. I'll point out that i respect your post more than them, though.
Also, the soul is not indefinable.
(a)using real words and definitions

I've defined it myself, and i'll stick to it, as such:
The soul is comprised of: the spirit or intent of a being to do things that aren't necessarily conscious in effort but that are reinforced by a pattern of behaviour and familiarity; the instinct of intellect to learn and determine importance from behaviour and experience; and the wisdom upon reflection of the worth of those things.
I would implore otherwise to be proven.
Also, it needs to be proven that WE, as ANYONE of the human race, survive in any discernable fashion to our consciousness beyond death. Death is, of course, NOT life.

Maybe it was a bible edit. Like, in RL, Jesus said something like "For fuck's sake, dad, why don't you just get it over and done with? You could have at least destroyed all my sensory neurones where it hurts, this bloody spear wound is killing me! And...oh, oh that's just great. My last day on Earth and I just shat myself, nailed to a cross, in front of these two guys next to me. Hey, only one of them can see it, hang on...Hey, hey buddy! Yeah, you, I'll sneak you into heaven if you never mention this shit stain to anyone. Yeah, I'm tight with the man upstairs - he's my homeboy. Yeah. We cool? Hang on...hey dad? Let this guy in will you, he's nice really and he repents and shit."

YAY! :D

See? It pays to ignore the smell. :)

Jesus Saves!

Jesus Saves!
People always say that, and I've always wondered: How does Jesus save? Does he do it old school and stuff his cash in the mattress? Does he use a bank or is he still bitter at the Jews about the whole crufixion thing?

People always say that, and I've always wondered: How does Jesus save? Does he do it old school and stuff his cash in the mattress? Does he use a bank or is he still bitter at the Jews about the whole crufixion thing?

Swiss bank account. *nod*

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?
Rent 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' this weekend, it explains it very well. The 'Garden of Gethsamne' bit (sp).

People always say that, and I've always wondered: How does Jesus save? Does he do it old school and stuff his cash in the mattress? Does he use a bank or is he still bitter at the Jews about the whole crufixion thing?
Jesus was a Jew!

http://static.syswear.com/images/tshirts/jesussaves/jesussaves_black_thumb.png

He is actually the Star Goal Tender in the Local Ice Hockey Team.

Capital Crucifiers!

Swiss bank account. *nod*
The Jews control the Swiss though, so he still fails.

Jesus was a Jew!
No, fool, Jesus was (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924393&postcount=17) a Killer Whale (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924469&postcount=27).

Here's another definition of the Trinity that makes great sense to me being a former Catholic who never could understand much of the Christian dogma.

THE TRINITY

Question. -- What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?

Answer. -- The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.

The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.[1]
[1 Cf. "Pantheism," p. 290.]

God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man [1] is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.
[1 The Divine Manifestation.]

Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors -- one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.

It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)
I'll note that i rarely take umbrance to your posts, since you, in my experience, ALMOST ALWAYS use them for a keener appreciation of matters spiritual. Please note that the nature of my response keeps that in mind, thusly.

The conditions are the same from my post, and here's what i take exception to as such:

The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception.
That right there disqualified itself as a definition.

[I]The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.[1]
I'll point out that on many other of my posts of same nature i've qualified the integrity of the conditions of existence being consequence, and for this post, i'm going to specify that there was the specific instance mentioned of cause-and-effect in the bible, one that disqualifies a sense of being independent of any deity's involvement from "existence" - thus qualifying a condition. The example i'll cite is God's regret for its own actions upon unleashing the deluge upon earth.
I'll give you four different bible's versions if you need it, but that example is on other current threads on this forum as i type this.


There is much fancy after that, for which i don't really have much typing to waste on.
But the end paragraph summates well,
the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.
Being written by, extrapolated upon, speculated upon, coined, manipulated, falsified, reproduced and made ineffable, the very integrity of a so-called trinity is by itself a farcicle notion that, yes, is but an effort of the imagination.

This, though ...
The Oneness of God is also proved.
Not even close.

prove:

(OED) demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument
be found

(Webster's) to test by experiment, a standard, etc.
to establish as true
to be found by experience or trial

You would be HARD PRESSED to qualify these folks' diatribe on "the trinity" as having proven any thing.
Basically, there was a couple of semantic statements that didn't qualify themselves with fact, and they went about restating themselves a few times as a mantra might, while providing no meat but an allegory to something along the lines of (wave theory, of course, dumbed down)

So i'll leave you with a comparison of my own, a little strange, if you may think ...
Geordi and the crew of the Enterprise-D deisgned a two-dimensional pictographic representation, that they knew would confound the Borg and their incessant analysis, and what it ended up doing was causing an intellectual schism that caused some of them to *gasp* think for themselves. Of course, they later aligned with Lore, but that's not really the point.
Anyway, their minds couldn't wrap around the dimensional representation they were dealt, and it caused them to come to logical standstill, given it was nonsense that they thought was coming to them in a form of usable information, from a trustworthy source ... you might even call them an ineffable source, until then.
Point being they came to a halt because they allowed their own lack of nonsense filters to block out what was irrelevant, they didn't scrutinize the source of the information, and the information that caught them up in a lack of logic made them betray their function in a (mostly) sensible universe with testable, predictable conditions, one they could experience and ...
prove.

The Jews control the Swiss though, so he still fails.


No, fool, Jesus was (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924393&postcount=17) a Killer Whale (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924469&postcount=27).

Do they? I suspect it is just the opposite. Those swiss are considerably sneakier than they appear.

The Jews control the Swiss though, so he still fails.


No, fool, Jesus was (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924393&postcount=17) a Killer Whale (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9924469&postcount=27).
No what is said on NS never counts!

We all talk to ourselves now and then. Hell, half of the posts I make here on NS seem like I'm just talking to myself.
You can get help for your problem. :rolleyes:

You can get help for your problem. :rolleyes:
Do you mean, like, only posting half as much?
;)

EDIT: Actually, for real equity, make sure JesusSaves posts the other half. Closure, maybe.
That and some guest posts from Abyssilian Nuclei or whatever that name is. !

No what is said on NS never counts!
But your statement being valid invalidates your statement. Thus, I have caught you at a logical fallacy and you will now cease to exist.
HACHACHA!
And Jesus, was a Killer Whale.

Do you mean, like, only posting half as much?
;)
Yes, something like that........way too funny!!! :D

Yes, something like that........way too funny!!! :D
Thanks!! How're you doing, CanuckHeaven?
BTW, did you note the last Patriot Act thread?
There were THREE people who had been personally affected/had their rights infringed by the Patriot Act. At least one of them doesn't mind reprints of their posts. As for the other two, i don't know if they'd mind or not.

*Grabs a hammer, two boards and a nail while muttering about doing the job right this time*

The bastard just won't die!!!!!!:headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

Thanks!! How're you doing, CanuckHeaven?
BTW, did you note the last Patriot Act thread?
There were THREE people who had been personally affected/had their rights infringed by the Patriot Act. At least one of them doesn't mind reprints of their posts. As for the other two, i don't know if they'd mind or not.
I am doing well thanks and I hope all is well with you.

I sorta glanced at the Patriot thread, and it made me glad that I live in Canada.

Otherwise, I have been too busy, as I am gearing up for my second wedding. I hope to limit myself to one wedding per century. One in the 1900's and one in the 2000's. :)

I am doing well thanks and I hope all is well with you.

I sorta glanced at the Patriot thread, and it made me glad that I live in Canada.

Otherwise, I have been too busy, as I am gearing up for my second wedding. I hope to limit myself to one wedding per century. One in the 1900's and one in the 2000's. :)
Congratulations are in order then! *bows*
Good luck/providence on that!
I just went through my first (hopefully last) this past summer. Sunny day, which was peculiar because it left an eerie impression on four different cameras in four different locations compared to the position of the sun. Kinda like early biblical expressions of angelic visitation, the wings being light beams upwards from their frames.

We were, of course, an hour-and-a-half late. Didn't get to finish my burger OR my cake. Didn't even get to consummate my marriage until about 5.30 am.
Well, i shouldn't go into too much detail, but again, hope it goes well for you and your loved one!
(Forgive me if i presume that you love them ... only one of them ...? ;) )

But your statement being valid invalidates your statement. Thus, I have caught you at a logical fallacy and you will now cease to exist.
HACHACHA!
And Jesus, was a Killer Whale.
Sorry i was busy i was going to edit it.
Self Quoting is gay!
Gayer than Puppet Wank.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

So basically, what you're missing is this: The night before Jesus, Luke, Matt and a few others had been tripping out pretty heavily. Well it turned out that one of their buddies, name of Judas, was a rat in with the cops. Anyway, the lot of them got turned in and it turns out Jesus had been in some pretty phony con business.

Anyway, they string him up and the whole nine-yards and he's sitting there dying, muttering to himself 'cause the stuff hadn't worn off yet, while Matt and Luke are watching. Luke was a little less used to tripping and so he was hearing some pretty strange shit. Matt, it turns out, basically got it right (although he did make a mistake with the whole god part.). Jesus had been hoping one of the street gangs would save his ass and so what he said was "Mike Gatt, why have you forsaken me?"

The rest of the details got confused because of the general stupor of the witnesses and the chaos of all of them getting booked.

In Matthew his last words were "my god why have you forsaken me?". Kinda seems like he didn't know the plan in advance and he was just some guy who God played for a sucker.

In Luke (I think, maybe John) he says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". Kinda like he's the son of God and is about to complete his mission.

Which is it? Why does the bible contain both?

The Bible was written by many different people (duh) with conflicting viewpoints (duh) and different experiences (duh). Maybe Jesus said both, maybe he said neither, maybe he said, "hey, meet me for the barbeque Sunday night!" Point being, we all know that the Bible has multiple sides of most stories. This issue has been played out. YES, THE BIBLE IS INCONSISTENT! SHUT UP!

*Sorry, DCD, this is not aimed at you, but at the hundreds of people who have argued over this very point for months now. I am very frustrated. I think I'll go punch babies.*

*Grabs a hammer, two boards and a nail while muttering about doing the job right this time*

The bastard just won't die!!!!!!:headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

He's a zombie now. It's too late for crucifixion.

He's a zombie now. It's too late for crucifixion.
I :eek: at your post.

;)

So basically, what you're missing is this: The night before Jesus, Luke, Matt and a few others had been tripping out pretty heavily. Well it turned out that one of their buddies, name of Judas, was a rat in with the cops. Anyway, the lot of them got turned in and it turns out Jesus had been in some pretty phony con business.

Anyway, they string him up and the whole nine-yards and he's sitting there dying, muttering to himself 'cause the stuff hadn't worn off yet, while Matt and Luke are watching. Luke was a little less used to tripping and so he was hearing some pretty strange shit. Matt, it turns out, basically got it right (although he did make a mistake with the whole god part.). Jesus had been hoping one of the street gangs would save his ass and so what he said was "Mike Gatt, why have you forsaken me?"

The rest of the details got confused because of the general stupor of the witnesses and the chaos of all of them getting booked.
It's kinda strange that a post like this truly puts that issue into a Kinda Sensible light.
*bows*

*bump*

He's a zombie now. It's too late for crucifixion.

Then I guess we'll just have to use salt then.

Actually, I think we should force him to endure his endless birthday celebrations with the rest of us truly damned souls.

This thread has, unsurprisingly, taken a disturbing but amusing twist.