Hebrews8;- The new covenant

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

so the next time a pastor starts collecting tithes, get up and start collecting 10% from everyone around you.

That could be a wind fall in turnips and carrots ...let me think about that

a reply to: namelesss

It is not uncommon to conflate 'beliefs' with 'Faith', even while they are complete opposites.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them opposites . In order to believe you have to have something to believe in .ie the word ...Faith is a matter of how much trust you put into that belief ...Oh yee of little faith ...Its not the quantity but the quality that is lacking ...That is where believing without the works manifesting in the believer comes into the fuller picture .

A martyr would have lots of trust in what he believed while a weaker faith might scum to the fear dew to the lack of faith .

a reply to: Raggedyman
Is it merely my opinion that the KJV (and many other bible translations) talks about "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" or is that (also) a fact?

Is it a fact/truth that there is a God who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" or is that merely an opinion, interpretation or eisegesis?

Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a God who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a God who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"..."whose name alone is Jehovah"? (according to the KJV, some other translations might rephrase that last part slightly)

My observations and reasoning on them leads me to the conclusion that Trinitarians often worship what they do not know. What I've also observed is that some people like to dismiss (not consider) any fact that is inconvenient to their line of reasoning about these subjects by calling it mere opinion (the terms relative and subjective truth are related to this way of thinking and arguing, as well as the phrase "science does not deal with absolutes" and the way nameless argues about the topic of faith/belief and supposed infections). The ones arguing for evolutionary philosophies do it all the time too, including nameless when he's arguing that one cannot even be certain that 1+1=2 (is a fact, is factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error). Including the others arguing the same way in the threads about knowledge and truth (the 2 threads were I've drawn out this behaviour by bringing up the factual statement that 1+1=2).

Here's another example of the same behaviour of referring to facts as opinions for dismissal purposes (trivializing, degrading, downgrading, devaluing, sweeping under the carpet, I can never quite find the right word or expression to quickly say what I mean, I want to use a Dutch expression that really emphasizes willful ignorance+selective agnosticism and dismissal of inconvenient facts/realities one does not want to deal with; east-indian deafness by downgrading facts to opinions in the mind, their opinion, and presenting opinions as facts or as that which is true, the reality of the matter, the correct understanding of the matter: see Isaiah 5:20,21):


nikkie2christ & Barbsinclair ( The KJV is inconsistent p 2)

a reply to: whereislogic

My observations and reasoning on them leads me to the conclusion that Trinitarians often worship what they do not know.

The trinity doctrine is not something that is easy to get our minds around .Changing water into wine or walking on water also challenge us .Someone being raised from the dead is out of this world to our understanding in the 21st century...

But what about the people back 2000 years ...What were they thinking ? Well the trinity seemed to come easy for them to believe ...The reason is , is that they already had a 2 powers in heaven concept .A kind of duo God head and they got that idea from the old testament ...They wrote about it and it can be found in extra biblical writings . Mike Heiser give a lecture on the subject ...This link is to a condensed shorter talk but still around 1 hour www.youtube.com... the full lecture is over 3 hours

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I have found Michael Heiser to be an extremely dubious character (in terms of honesty). Of course his behaviour and those who use him as a source for their information fits nicely with 2 Timothy 4:3,4. See one of the reasons why I think anyone appealing to Michael Heiser's lectures is not going to enlighten me or anyone else on this forum anytime soon regarding the identity of God and the correct understanding of the bible's teachings (as well as subjects involving translational issues):

My commentary about Heiser's eisegesis concerning Deuteronomy 32:8

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: namelesss

It is not uncommon to conflate 'beliefs' with 'Faith', even while they are complete opposites.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them opposites .

The words "belief" and "faith" are listed as synonyms in all thesauri that I've looked at (one decent one is enough though regarding my point). It's a perfect example or demonstration of Isaiah 5:20,21 when someone calls them opposites/antonyms ( a word with the opposite meaning). A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. An antonym is a word opposite in meaning to another (e.g., bad and good ). To refer to the words "belief" and "faith" (or the underlying concepts, eg. by saying "beliefs") as "they are complete opposites", would be like substituting fact for fiction (and vice versa), truth with a lie, bad with good and light for darkness and darkness for light. One is claiming the exact opposite of what the reality of the matter is. The facts/truths concerning this subject.

FACT: the word "belief" is a synonym for "faith" (and vice versa), that means they are NOT antonyms

That is how humans speaking English have agreed upon using language in honest conversations in an understandable manner and not tapdancing routines influenced by propaganda and human philosophy (dancing around the facts/truths/certainties, that which is true/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/certain/factual, usually by elaborate philosophizing and twisting of language and logic, including capitalizing on the ambiguity of language).

a reply to: whereislogic

I have found Michael Heiser to be an extremely dubious character

You have a free will do chose to think that but you will need prof to back up your extremely dubious charge . Please provide us with facts (citation) to his dubious errors ...He has his PHD on the line and so using a adhom means nothing to others that might be included in your blanket statement ""Michael Heiser's lectures is not going to enlighten me or anyone else on this forum "" You don't speak for me ...You may not even be speaking for a few others let alone all .

FACT: the word "belief" is a synonym for "faith" (and vice versa), that means they are NOT antonyms

false...the amount of faith you put into what you believe is a matter of how much you trust what you believe .You may not have any trust in what you are reading and so don't put much faith in it . Put a child on top of the fridge and tell them to jump and you will catch them ..it matters how much trust they have in you that will determine is they jump ...Its the amount of faith they have in you .

a reply to: the2ofusr1
It's not an ad hominem to be honest about someone's behaviour and type of influence (or arguing, teaching, etc.). See the commentary I linked to for the evidence you were asking for (and the previous page with more commentary about it and links to pictures of the subject being discussed, the actual supposed evidence for his claims that SethTsaddik was also arguing in favor for, or TerriblePhoenix, or whatever name he went by in that thread). I find it peculiar (and mildly intriguing; as if there's something more to it that perhaps I should give some more thought why this is the case) again to see you do the same (as in suggesting Heiser as a reputable source for information about a subject, arguing along with or in agreement with, in line with his teachings and reasonings, speaking positively of those teachings or presenting them in the same manner without for example mentioning such things as I mentioned and showed in that thread with the picture links, just as I've seen Seede and others using the same arguments and line of reasoning as those accounts that keep getting blocked or disappearing, or they are promoting the same views and selective agnosticism regarding what the bible really says, obscuring clarity and suggesting that there is a reasonable debate about how for example Deuteronomy 32:8 should be translated, that it's up for debate, open to interpretation and bias; while the facts speak for themselves regarding those with phony translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 and lame arguments in support of their translational 'choice', deliberate deception actually presented as if it's a reasonable choice to translate it in that manner and that there is ancient manuscriptal support for it, which there isn't, it's just so blatantly fake and twisted that it becomes quite telling regarding those bible translators and supposed scholars that won't be honest about it, including Heiser).

I notice you're responding to my comments but haven't touched the questions I asked Raggedyman. One can always continue steering the conversation towards debating whether or not what I mentioned about Heiser qualifies as an ad hominem though. But it's really besides the point of what the bible is teaching about God and not of much interest regarding the subject I responded to.

Btw, all one needs to do to confirm the fact I shared that you called "false", is to google "faith synonyms", click the page (or use multiple different sources to confirm) and then search the page for "belief". That's a good way to try to be honest in conversations and not end up inadvertently or advertently* painting pictures on someone else for sharing falsehoods when they are mentioning facts (for me "advertently" includes or almost includes willful ignorance regarding simple facts like these, or definitely feigned ignorance, sometimes I find it hard to tell which of the 2 is going on, but I often see clear evidence for at least one of the 2). A behaviour that someone could describe as making an ad hominem argument regarding that subject (of whether or not the word "belief" is a synonym for the word "faith") if indeed what was mentioned was a fact. Which any honest seeker of knowledge and truth about reality can discover and learn within 30 seconds. So they can have a reasonable conversation and not sound like someone who has such a low view of another person (programmed, conditioned by this system of things, haughtiness, stiff-necked, pride and a bunch more biblical descriptions might be worthy of consideration here) that there's almost no chance of even reasonably discussing the most simple* facts/truths/certainties that one can learn or discover about reality (*: the most simple to learn or discover, honesty with oneself and others regarding "what is least" hard to understand or acknowledge that one understands and has knowledge of that it is a fact/truth or factual/true what is being discussed). Luke 16:10,11:

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. 11 Therefore, if you have not proved yourselves faithful in connection with the unrighteous riches, who will entrust you with what is true?

Dishonesty about what is true, is a sign of unrighteousness, and if one can't be honest about acknowledging the fact/truth that the word "belief" is used as a synonym for "faith" and registered as such in thesauri, one isn't going to be honest about the bigger things and more 'complicated' subjects such as the identity and attributes of God (what he's like), btw, it's not that complicated but it's made complicated by his opposer Satan and those who argue like Aleister Crowley for example (or those who have associated a bit too much with him and his kind and are spreading his philosophies and ways of thinking further, in recognizable patterns to me, I've spoken quite a bit about Pontius Pilate in the thread about "truth" and "knowledge" and that way of thinking, selective agnosticism, willful ignorance, feigned ignorance, clinging on to one's own version or view of reality in spite of all evidence and facts showing otherwise, avoiding those facts, etc.).

Then again, you're going along with nameless way of twisting and obscuring the meaning of those words (adding your own twist or variation) who was quoting a friend and promoter (via the media, I think he was a journalist) of the well-known Satanist Aleister Crowley in my thread about three 16th century truth seekers, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. Bad associations spoil useful habits. It is said that we are what we eat and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us. But it is far better for each individual personally to choose wisely what he will feed his mind. And try not to be too much affected by those affected by the Aleister Crowley types and the promoters of their philosophies, ways of thinking (about important subjects such as how to distinguish both right and wrong, what is true and what is false) and ways of using, misusing and twisting language and logic (in a very propagandistic manner, including tricks such as capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and playing on the emotions).

Likewise, regarding the questions I asked Raggedyman regarding what is factual/true/certain about those subjects, one can google Ephesians 1:3 and Psalms 83:18, possibly adding KJV to your google search if needed (I didn't need it, first link was the KJV). So that one can be honest about the subject in the future, something Christians are highly encouraged to do in the bible, one might even one day find out that the requirement and command given regarding that subject is equal to showing love to one's neighbour. Love rejoices with the truth. Not nonsense, contradictions, 'mysteries of (blind) faith' and denying obvious facts or calling them false, or downgrading them to mere opinions (even though a person can have various opinions about various facts; but for the purpose of blurring the lines so one does not have to acknowledge an obvious fact/truth for what it is by referring to it as an opinion as if that's all it is and perhaps even along with the notion that one can never know the reality of the matter for certain).

a reply to: whereislogic

I am only going to offer up to you a few comments and leave them with you to ponder . Your rather large incoherent rant is just that imo . FAITH,,Jas 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,
Jas 1:3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
Jas 1:4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Jas 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
Jas 1:6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. Faith is linked with doubting ..ie you child maybe doubting that you will catch them if they do jump .

TRINITY . Alan F. Segal (August 2, 1945 – February 13, 2011) was a scholar of ancient religions, specializing in Judaism's relationship to Christianity. Segal was a distinguished scholar, author, and speaker, self-described as a "believing Jew and twentieth-century humanist."[1]:281 Segal was one of the first modern scholars to write extensively on the influences of Judaism (including Second Temple Rabbinic texts, Merkabah mysticism, and Jewish apocalypticism) on Paul of Damascus. en.wikipedia.org...

""Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). "" drmsh.com...

So what happened and what is still happening ...The Jewish community got together and declared the Two Powers a Heresy despite it not being one historically ...What we see today is the same thing going on with the cult of Jehovah’s Witnesses ...When you make a truth a heresy and try to defend it you are not talking truth ....So get over it ...The Trinity is not new and is embedded in the old testament ...The new testament writers didn't make it up ...They just expounded on it .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: namelesss
"It is not uncommon to conflate 'beliefs' with 'Faith', even while they are complete opposites."

I wouldn't go so far as to call them opposites . In order to believe you have to have something to believe in .ie the word ...

Everything exists, of course that in which you 'believe' exists.
Whether the unicorn in your thoughts or the rock at your foot.

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes

'Faith' is unconditional, unlimited, a transcendental Virtue of unconditional Love!
A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the ego/thought! Completely 'conditional', 'limited', vanity!
One is what Jesus taught, the other is what is warned against!
Even the bible warns against even 'believing' your own thoughts! At least it gets 'that' right!

Faith is a matter of how much trust you put into that belief ...Oh yee of little faith ...Its not the quantity but the quality that is lacking ...That is where believing without the works manifesting in the believer comes into the fuller picture .

You are still conflating, perhaps because you have never experienced unconditional Love/Faith.
Experience = Knowledge.
All 'beliefs' experience/know is itself. Ego.

A martyr would have lots of trust in what he believed while a weaker faith might scum to the fear dew to the lack of faith .

As an invasive species, a 'belief' has various self-defense mechanisms! Since a 'belief' is an infection of the ego, who and what we consider ourselves to be, we identify with them, and would commit all sorts of violent insanity in their constant need for defense, feeding and propagation (evangelism)!
Both Faith and beliefs are known by their symptoms, completely unlike each other.
'Faith' needs none of those things, no defense, no feeding, no propagation (spreading)!

Faith can 'fuel' a martyr, so can insanity.

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity ('Charity' is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

These are not the symptoms of 'beliefs', which is the need to constantly defend, feed and propagate, which is the inhibition of cognitive and intellectual ability (malfunction of logical/rational thought) leading to insanity.
When Reality is 'make-believe', to 'believe' is insanity!

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: namelesss
Seems rather 'exclusive/conditional', as opposed to Jesus' unconditional Love, completely 'inclusive/unconditional', transcendent!

Whether you like it or not, the "conditional" and "exclusive" element is fundamental to the Bible.

Only with a superficial, shallow reading, and no real Knowledge/experience!
And the bible has an awful lot of irrelevant garbage in it that needs to be critically updated, anyway.
Jesus never taught to be 'exclusive' in who we Love, and he never taught that Love to be 'conditional'.
You appear clueless as to what Jesus was about, or you aren't a 'Xtian'.

It goes right back to the first and most basic commandment, "You shall have no other gods but me", which is necessarily excluding other gods.

1) the commandments of the bible are irrelevant to Xtians.
2) There is only One God/Reality/Truth, there are many Perspectives.

You are quietly ignoring everything that Jesus says about the rejection and condemnation of those who refuse to listen to him.

If the bible or the NT talks of 'exclusion' and condemnation' it is in error, or you are!
"Judge not!"
That is the original sin, eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! To use that knowledge in judgment is repeating that sin once again, pounding one more nail into Jesus' flesh!
And "if you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
"None are righteous, no not one"
Sorry, Jesus said that the only way that he's recognize his followers is by their unconditional Love!

They will be "not allowed through the gate", "left outside the door", "thrown into outer darkness". He warns the more stubborn towns of Galilee that they will be brought down to Hades, that it will be less tolerable for them on the day of judgement than for the land of Sodom.
In short, they will be excluded.

If ll that myth and drama floats your boat, then you have nothing to do with the Love that was taught.
'Vengeance is Mine, said God!"
Not your's, vain man! Jesus told/showed you how to behave!

The difference between those who belong to God and those who do not is built into Biblical theology.

Exclusive crap, the same exclusive crap that is built into every vain religion!
We are right and you are heathens!

Religion is vanity and insanity!
Jesus' teachings transcended the legalists blinded by all those words (many obsolete) and their 'belief' infections!

I take it from your avatar that you are a devotee of a completely different religion,

Then you err in your unfounded assumption.
Like the bible.
I am not a devotee of any vain religion!

which rather weakens your claim to speak with authority on the nature of Christian teaching.

It is not about 'who' is doing the speaking', it is about 'what' is said!
When the material gets a bit uncomfortable to the ego, finding a way to dismiss the messenger (unfair, false news) is juvenile, a fallacy, and very Trumpish!

You are expressing a viewpoint which you find appealing; I am simply describing what the New Testament actually says.

I am expressing my experience/Knowledge, and you are expressing something that you have read.
What it 'actually' says? What vanity!
Which version do you like, is what it 'actually says'?
Those who can read past the superficial literalist cluelessness are more likely to know what it actually 'means', then simply what their favorite version says.

"If you see sin and exclusivity and evil and judgment and condemnation, you are no Xtian." - Jesus

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: namelesss

Diz is right nameless, your position based on your beliefs and understanding is pointless.

I have no 'beliefs', and my understanding is supported with experience/Knowledge.

I am a christian,

What a vain thing to say!
Jesus said that he knows his followers by their unconditional Love!
While in such a state of Love, there is no ego, no vanity that would declare that you are in such a state.
Others might recognize it, but the Humble would never call themselves Humble!

I believe Jesus is God, that His message to His followers, even the world was love each other

Jesus is God as much as anyone else is God!
We are all God!
Even imaginary saviors.

You infer He wasn't God,

Not at all!
(I imply, you infer.)
Even if he never existed other than in the imaginations of his 'believers', he is still as much God as anyone!
Perhaps you never meditated on what God is One means, what Omni- mens?
It ll means that nothing exists that is not God!
"As I am, so can you be!" - Jesus
You, too, can Know/experience Our Universality!

well Jesus calmed the sea, healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead and, how about we throw in forgave sin.
I can't do any of that

Any idea what 'metaphor' is?
You are believing a Dr.Seuss tale to be reality and not understanding anything.
What does 'calming the sea" mean?
Obviously, no one waves his hand and the storm obeys, obviously.
So it must mean something else.
Metaphor.
And all the rest of those impossible 'miracles', all metaphor for those with their eyes and hearts open...

and "dog forbid", you trying to cause a little antagonism,

One symptom of a belief infection is the inability to see humor.
Like this.

start a fight, belittle me...

There is nothing personal in what I write, if it so disturbs you, it must be you recognizing that I am offering an uncomfortable truth!
Tough, deal with it.
Feel free not to read what I write, but I will write as I must, your permission is not necessary.

A wise person pays special attention to that which disturbs him!

originally posted by: namelesss

This being a thread on BIblical theology, based on a chapter of Hebrews, I am not going to discuss anything except matters arising from the opening post.

1) the commandments of the bible are irrelevant to Xtians.

That is only a half-truth. I've answered this point already, in my first reply to you, viz;
"The New Testament position is that the Old Testament is the first foundation of the faith, but needs to be properly understood (Paul comments that the Jews were reading it "through a veil")."
The true perspective was outlined by Paul in Romans;
"We serve not under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit" (Romans ch7 v6).
The commandments of the Old Testament are relevant to the extent that they are endorsed by the Holy Spirit.
The exclusive spirit of "You shall have no other gods but me" is so patently of the essence of the Bible (as a more thorough knowledge of the Bible would show you) that it falls into this category.

If the bible or the NT talks of 'exclusion' and condemnation' it is in error, or you are!

I am not here to discuss whether the Bible is right or not. I am only here to describe what it says (and that includes, I must remind you, what it says in the words of Jesus).

"Judge not!"

The Jesus who spoke these words is also the Jesus who wanted his followers to discern between good and evil, and warned them that God would discern to the point of judgement between those who belonged to him and those who did not..
That tells us that discernment between good and evil, and discernment between God's people and those outside is not the kind of "judgement" that he was criticising. If he objected to that discernment, he would not be doing it himself.
I have done a thread on the "Judge not" command, and refer you to that for any further discussion on the matter.

Sorry, Jesus said that the only way that he's recognize his followers is by their unconditional Love!

That is not true. You cannot quote a place where he says "unconditional". You have made that up to suit your own ideas.

ll that myth and drama floats your boat, then you have nothing to do with the Love that was taught.

I was quoting the words of Jesus. How can you claim Jesus as an authority at one moment and and reject his words at the next moment?

"Once again, I am not here to discuss whether the Bible is right. I am only here to describe what the Bible actually says."
I am expressing my experience/Knowledge, and you are expressing something that you have read.

Like it or not, this thread is defined by what I am doing, not what you are doing.
This is a thread of Biblical theology, based on one of the chapters of Hebrews.

OK, you may prefer wandering through a hazy mist of nice ideas ("Isn't that sweet! Like a petal! I'll have that one for my bouquet of theories!").
I'm not interested in that kind of theology, and this is not that kind of thread.

"If you see sin and exclusivity and evil and judgment and condemnation, you are no Xtian." - Jesus

Oh look, you've invented another imaginary quotation. He never said it.
False Quotations = False News.

a reply to: namelesss

Thank you for your opinion
It's yours and you are welcome to it

Please stop preaching at me, I asked nicely

a reply to: namelesss

Only with a superficial, shallow reading, and no real Knowledge/experience! And the bible has an awful lot of irrelevant garbage in it that needs to be critically updated, anyway.

You look to be contradicting your self by saying such things .Your use of "knowledge/experience" as a kind of term looks suspiciously like a pair of goal posts you can move at will to both defend your stance and move your point along .

Knowledge is knowing ...Seeking knowledge requires a source for that knowledge you seek .Experience is what happens on that journey ...A person passes by knowledge ever day if they are not looking for it and may even miss it while looking for it .Yes ego can get in our way ,no doubt ...Maybe its your own ego that caused you to say "" the bible has an awful lot of irrelevant garbage in it that needs to be critically updated, anyway.""

One mans junk is another mans gold . Where one man looked and found nothing another looked and found a gold mine just beneath the surface or in plain sight... That is the experience of man .

The only critical updating about the bible that is needed is man updating his or her mind about it .Many men and women are still mining it and it seems to be a endless vein of pure gold .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: namelesss

Only with a superficial, shallow reading, and no real Knowledge/experience! And the bible has an awful lot of irrelevant garbage in it that needs to be critically updated, anyway.

You look to be contradicting your self by saying such things .Your use of "knowledge/experience" as a kind of term looks suspiciously like a pair of goal posts you can move at will to both defend your stance and move your point along .

Not at all!
You do not know what you experience? Really?
I know what I experience, and that is Knowledge!

Knowledge is knowing ...

Well, now that you have defined that which has never had a good definition (until mine); "Knowledge is knowing"!
It seems so simple now that you put it like that! *__-

Seeking knowledge requires a source for that knowledge you seek .

See? That misunderstanding of Knowledge has you rattling forth in it's quest down the wrong siding, and thus, you imagine that there is some 'source', falsely, because you do not understand the nature of Knowledge.

Experience is what happens on that journey ...

Experience/Knowledge is what is happening every moment of Universal existence, to all!
Knowledge is the perception of the unique moment/Perspective, the One unchanging Universal Reality, 'before us'

A person passes by knowledge ever day if they are not looking for it and may even miss it while looking for it .Yes ego can get in our way ,no doubt ...

Ego is thought!
To perceive 'thought' is to have experience/Knowledge of 'thought'.
That, too, is a feature of Reality, ALL being Known, Our Universal Omniscience!
Every moment, ever, is a unique moment of Universal Self Knowledge!

Maybe its your own ego that caused you to say "" the bible has an awful lot of irrelevant garbage in it that needs to be critically updated, anyway.""

Well, without getting into the fallacy of 'causality' I will have to agree with you on that.
"We must come down from the mountain to even speak!"
That means that on the 'top of the mountain' one remains in a state of Zen, unconditional Love/Enlightenment.
This is a 'thoughtless' yet Mindful state of being.
Thought is ego, so for me to offer these words is truly an act of ego, thoughtfully chosen words, carefully placed, trimmed and tossed into the ethers knowing that at the right time and place, the seeds will sprout fruitfully... fed by unconditional Love.

One mans junk is another mans gold .

Shall I translate that?
Junk and Gold are one and the same thing!
The only 'difference' is a matter of Perspective!

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by 'One' Consciousness.

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

The only critical updating about the bible that is needed is man updating his or her mind about it .Many men and women are still mining it and it seems to be a endless vein of pure gold .

What needs to be removed is all the unLoving unEnlightened passages that hateful ignorant people use to justify their malevolence and sinfulness!
That would leave about 100 pages.
A good place to start the judicious application of Occam's Razor!
If it isn't of practical, Loving furtherance, it gets clipped!
You have had that excuse for long enough! Look at the insane horrors you Xtians have propagated, and continue to propagate, on the face of the planet!
And you justify it with your Book of the Dead!
Slavery? Murder? Rape? Incest?.. all in your Book!
A Xtian would understand excising the book, someone who lives the talk of unconditional Love!
Get that unconditional part?
There are no 'conditions' to make someone 'worthy' of unconditional Love!
There is not anything beyond it's enfolding Light!

This is something that a Xtian should Know, if he has experienced Jesus' teachings/example vs just reading about it in the story!
All the 'rules', all the 'laws', all the 'rituals'; are all transcended and fulfilled in unconditional Love/Enlightenment!
All divisiveness, all exclusion, all discrimination, is vain egoic nonsense that the insane 'believe', and should be excised from the book.
It needs to be trimmed to the lowest common denominators (the vast majority)!
We gonna 'circumcise' your 'god'.
Because if the 'book' weren't a 'god', it wouldn't bother you to give it a well earned update!
An 'idol', some might say...

No person ever deliberately commits harm upon another unless he hosts some 'belief' or other (and often has a bible to justify it (or a Koran)).

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: namelesss

Thank you for your opinion
It's yours and you are welcome to it

Please stop preaching at me, I asked nicely

If you don't like the way that I answer your questions, stop asking them on a public forum, and to me in particular!
Are you threatening me Xtian?
Hahahahahahah!

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: namelesss

This being a thread on BIblical theology, based on a chapter of Hebrews, I am not going to discuss anything except matters arising from the opening post.

Fair enough.

1) the commandments of the bible are irrelevant to Xtians.

That is only a half-truth. I've answered this point already, in my first reply to you,
Yes, you did, but you erred in your understanding.
I get the feeling that you are not interested, or perhaps capable, of understanding what I am saying.
If you have no experience/Knowledge of unconditional Love, you cannot understand me.
Or Jesus.
Unconditional Love fulfills and transcends ALL laws, all rituals, all rules!
Even from the Bible of the Jews!
If you would argue that, then it's Jesus you want to be arguing with.

Spot and dot quotes from the 'old testament' are NOT used or needed to support Faith, which is an unconditional Virtue of Unconditional Love, they ARE needed to support vain 'beliefs', intellectualizing rather than actually living/experiencing/Knowing!

I was quoting the words of Jesus. How can you claim Jesus as an authority at one moment and and reject his words at the next moment?

What does your book say about 'discernment'?
I know what a Jesus would have said, and meant, because of experience/Knowledge.
Thus I can easily see what doesn't belong in the narrative.
When the 'narrative' is all you have, lack of 'discernment' and understanding is expected.

And if this Perspective so disturbs you, a rational person without 'beliefs to defend', would have not engaged me in further conversation.
When you OP, this is a public forum and there are those who read my comments and find them fruitful, others do not.
If you don't, why are you talking to me?
Want to 'convince' me that your ignorance is really Knowledge?
Sorry, I know better.

Are we through?
(At least until the next OP... *__- )

The motto here is deny ignorance , so here goes


Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 4:33 Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived?
Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.
Deuteronomy 5:23 When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leaders of your tribes and your elders came to me.

God was a volcano THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS WERE BASED ON IGNORANCE OF VOLCANOES?

ohmyvolcano.blogspot.co.uk...