Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The temple.

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 6:08:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I think they are revering to Matthew 24:1-2.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 6:08:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I think they are revering to Matthew 24:1-2.

John 2:19-21 is part of the same story from a different perspective.

To see the whole picture, you need to look at all 4 gospel accounts which mention the temple destruction. When you consider just one account, it is like only listening to one witness at any trial and only getting the story from one point of view.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 6:28:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:08:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I think they are revering to Matthew 24:1-2.

John 2:19-21 is part of the same story from a different perspective.

No, it's not. John 2 has not a thing in the world to do with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. John 2 was not spoken anywhere near the same time, nor location, nor to the same people as Matt 24/Mark 13

To see the whole picture, you need to look at all 4 gospel accounts which mention the temple destruction.

The destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is not what Jesus was talking about in John 2.

When you consider just one account, it is like only listening to one witness at any trial and only getting the story from one point of view.

Just because Jesus referred to His own body as a "temple" does not mean that every time you see the word "temple", it means a human body.

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:28:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:08:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I think they are revering to Matthew 24:1-2.

John 2:19-21 is part of the same story from a different perspective.

No, it's not. John 2 has not a thing in the world to do with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. John 2 was not spoken anywhere near the same time, nor location, nor to the same people as Matt 24/Mark 13

To see the whole picture, you need to look at all 4 gospel accounts which mention the temple destruction.

The destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is not what Jesus was talking about in John 2.

When you consider just one account, it is like only listening to one witness at any trial and only getting the story from one point of view.

Just because Jesus referred to His own body as a "temple" does not mean that every time you see the word "temple", it means a human body.

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables. You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The way Jesus spoke was with a "forked tongue" or "another tongue" He spoke in the language the people could understand but most did not understand what he was talking about because he was not talking about physical things. He was referring to spiritual things. Those who look only on outward appearances still cannot comprehend it today and that is what causes all the ridiculous debates about physical things. The spiritually blind simply can't see or understand the truth regarding the spiritual concepts.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:28:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:08:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:03:15 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I have read posts where people are arguing about the bible prophecy about the destruction of the temple.
It seems they have not understood that the character Jesus was not talking about physical buildings but about his own body.

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

1 Cor 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I think they are revering to Matthew 24:1-2.

John 2:19-21 is part of the same story from a different perspective.

No, it's not. John 2 has not a thing in the world to do with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. John 2 was not spoken anywhere near the same time, nor location, nor to the same people as Matt 24/Mark 13

To see the whole picture, you need to look at all 4 gospel accounts which mention the temple destruction.

The destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is not what Jesus was talking about in John 2.

When you consider just one account, it is like only listening to one witness at any trial and only getting the story from one point of view.

Just because Jesus referred to His own body as a "temple" does not mean that every time you see the word "temple", it means a human body.

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The way Jesus spoke was with a "forked tongue" or "another tongue" He spoke in the language the people could understand but most did not understand what he was talking about because he was not talking about physical things. He was referring to spiritual things. Those who look only on outward appearances still cannot comprehend it today and that is what causes all the ridiculous debates about physical things. The spiritually blind simply can't see or understand the truth regarding the spiritual concepts.

That's your answer?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The way Jesus spoke was with a "forked tongue" or "another tongue" He spoke in the language the people could understand but most did not understand what he was talking about because he was not talking about physical things. He was referring to spiritual things. Those who look only on outward appearances still cannot comprehend it today and that is what causes all the ridiculous debates about physical things. The spiritually blind simply can't see or understand the truth regarding the spiritual concepts.

That's your answer?

My answer to your question regarding how I come up with this stuff, is that I use the bibles own interpretations of its own words.
It is a book about spiritual things. The spiritual concepts are hidden behind a superficial outward appearance. The outward appearance of physical things leads astray those who look only on outward appearances and do not look any deeper.
The bible is a collection of books about spiritual things. It is not a history book about physical things.

The character Jesus is a personified spirit. Why do believers not comprehend that fact? He is not a historical person. The whole story is about spiritual things not about physical things.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Really? As He hung on the cross, He said "I thirst". I take this to mean He was thirsty. Why don't you explain the metaphorical significance?

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, nor is it a prophesy concerning Him.


Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The way Jesus spoke was with a "forked tongue" or "another tongue" He spoke in the language the people could understand but most did not understand what he was talking about because he was not talking about physical things. He was referring to spiritual things. Those who look only on outward appearances still cannot comprehend it today and that is what causes all the ridiculous debates about physical things. The spiritually blind simply can't see or understand the truth regarding the spiritual concepts.

That's your answer?

My answer to your question regarding how I come up with this stuff, is that I use the bibles own interpretations of its own words.

Oh, I do not doubt a bit that Jesus often spoke in parables. That's a far cry, however, from trying to claim that every time He opened His mouth, a parable came out.

It is a book about spiritual things. The spiritual concepts are hidden behind a superficial outward appearance. The outward appearance of physical things leads astray those who look only on outward appearances and do not look any deeper.
The bible is a collection of books about spiritual things. It is not a history book about physical things.

The character Jesus is a personified spirit. Why do believers not comprehend that fact? He is not a historical person. The whole story is about spiritual things not about physical things.

In other words, Jesus said a lot, but He really never said a thing because there never was such a person. Makes sense.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Really? As He hung on the cross, He said "I thirst". I take this to mean He was thirsty. Why don't you explain the metaphorical significance?

Because you really are not interested at all. All you want to do is mock and ridicule what you don't want to understand.

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You need to repent of your own lukewarm wishy washy Christianity before you will comprehend the answer to that.
There is a vast difference between an outward appearance of repentance from carnal minded humans and and the repentance of an angel. When you figure that out you might understand the true meaning of repentance.
Many Christians claim to have repented but they still continue in sin. Their repentance is therefore in vain. They have not understood what it means to turn away from their sins and stop sinning. The spirit within them has not repented of anything when they remain in their lukewarm state where they are tossed to and fro by their own sins.


You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Whether you call it a parable of not makes no difference to the fact that his words were not directed at humans but at spirits. It is about a spirit speaking to spirits not about a historical man speaking to carnal minded humans who then attempt to put on a religious show and change their outward appearances.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, nor is it a prophesy concerning Him.

How blind you are.
Read the context. What does the prophecy refer to if not to the teacher of doctrine and knowledge ? Who is that teacher who speaks with stammering lips and another tongue if it not the Lord ?


Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The way Jesus spoke was with a "forked tongue" or "another tongue" He spoke in the language the people could understand but most did not understand what he was talking about because he was not talking about physical things. He was referring to spiritual things. Those who look only on outward appearances still cannot comprehend it today and that is what causes all the ridiculous debates about physical things. The spiritually blind simply can't see or understand the truth regarding the spiritual concepts.

That's your answer?

My answer to your question regarding how I come up with this stuff, is that I use the bibles own interpretations of its own words.

Oh, I do not doubt a bit that Jesus often spoke in parables. That's a far cry, however, from trying to claim that every time He opened His mouth, a parable came out.

Everything the character Jesus said had a double meaning and can be interpreted either carnally as being about physical things or spiritually as being about spiritual things. What word would you use to describe that kind of double meaning? If it is not a parable, what is it in your opinion? If you have a better word to describe the double meanings then please share it.

It is a book about spiritual things. The spiritual concepts are hidden behind a superficial outward appearance. The outward appearance of physical things leads astray those who look only on outward appearances and do not look any deeper.
The bible is a collection of books about spiritual things. It is not a history book about physical things.

The character Jesus is a personified spirit. Why do believers not comprehend that fact? He is not a historical person. The whole story is about spiritual things not about physical things.

In other words, Jesus said a lot, but He really never said a thing because there never was such a person. Makes sense.

Obviously you are very confused by the way writers use imaginary characters to teach lessons and morals to humans. You seem to lack understanding of the concept of an imaginary character who is nothing more than a personified spirit teaching spiritual lessons to the spirits which abide in humanity.
The spirit of Truth "speaks" to all spirits for all eternity but the spirits of deception will always reject and condemn the truth and call it a lie so they can continue to call their own lies truth and continue to live in their self deception.
The concept manifest itself through the religious hypocrites who have no clue what they are saying or doing but continue to condemn and crucify the Truth daily so they can continue to live in their religious rituals and worship their idols as they attempt to proselytize more people into their various religious institutions and place them under bondage to those idols.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Really? As He hung on the cross, He said "I thirst". I take this to mean He was thirsty. Why don't you explain the metaphorical significance?

Because you really are not interested at all. All you want to do is mock and ridicule what you don't want to understand.

I guess that amounts to no answer at all. For that, I gather that you've decided that Jesus was not thirsty.

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You need to repent of your own lukewarm wishy washy Christianity before you will comprehend the answer to that.
There is a vast difference between an outward appearance of repentance from carnal minded humans and and the repentance of an angel. When you figure that out you might understand the true meaning of repentance.
Many Christians claim to have repented but they still continue in sin. Their repentance is therefore in vain. They have not understood what it means to turn away from their sins and stop sinning. The spirit within them has not repented of anything when they remain in their lukewarm state where they are tossed to and fro by their own sins.

You did not, through all of that, give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement, "Repent".


You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Whether you call it a parable of not makes no difference to the fact that his words were not directed at humans but at spirits. It is about a spirit speaking to spirits not about a historical man speaking to carnal minded humans who then attempt to put on a religious show and change their outward appearances.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, nor is it a prophesy concerning Him.

How blind you are.

Well, let's see.

"The 'stammering lips' are those of the Assyrian conquerors, whose speech would seem to the men of Judah as a barbarous patois." - Ellicott's Commentary

"For the prophet here evidently intends to express the punishment of their dulness. With stammering lips, and another tongue " By people of a strange language, whom he will bring among them, and into whose power he will deliver them; will he speak to this people " Seeing they will not hear him speaking by his prophets and ministers, in their own language, they shall hear their enemies speaking to them in a strange language." - Benson's Commentry

"God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God." - Barnes Notes

"Your drunken questions shall be answered by the severe lessons from God conveyed through the Assyrians and Babylonians; the dialect of these, though Semitic, like the Hebrew, was so far different as to sound to the Jews like the speech of stammerers " - Jamisson, Faucett, Brown

"he would speak to them in a more severe and in a rougher manner in his providences, and bring a people against them of a strange language they understood not, and so should not be able to treat and make peace with them, and who would carry them captive into a strange land; which was fulfilled by bringing the Chaldean army upon them" - Gill's Exposition

"Isaiah parries the gibe with a terrible threat. Jehovah is about to employ a more uncouth language, to which their mocking description will fully apply, viz., the harsh barbarous accents of the Assyrian invaders." - Cambridge Commentary

"JUDAH'S PUNISHMENT. God will retort on the Jews their scorn of his prophet, and, as they will not be taught by his utterances, which they find to be childish and unrefined, will teach them by utterances still more unrefined - those of the Assyrians, which will be quite as monotonous and quite as full of minutiae as Isaiah's." - Pulpit Commentary

It just seems like every commentator and every commentary agrees with me - but then again, none of them had the light switch flipped on as SkyAngel and her cult of one (her poor husband) do. Nobody else in the world sees it as she (they) do; therefore, everyone else is blind - but the Space Cadet is enlightened. After all, who else would have said that when the Lord said, "I thirst", he was not thirsty? Who else could have told us that when the Lord said, "Repent", He really didn't mean for them to repent?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Really? As He hung on the cross, He said "I thirst". I take this to mean He was thirsty. Why don't you explain the metaphorical significance?

Because you really are not interested at all. All you want to do is mock and ridicule what you don't want to understand.

I guess that amounts to no answer at all. For that, I gather that you've decided that Jesus was not thirsty.

The story book character was talking about spiritual things not about physical things. Imaginary characters do whatever their authors decide they do.
Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?
If someone was physically being crucified do you really think they would be complaining of thirst or chatting with the spectators?

Besides that Hebrews 6:6 implies that Christ can be crucified afresh daily. I guess according to you, he must get a drink of water daily to refresh himself since he goes through the same crucifixion experience daily?

Heb 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

How many fall away daily Anna? Do they literally crucify the Son of God afresh? If he is not literally crucified daily by those who fall away, what makes you think he was literally crucified in the crucifixion story? The story is about people crucifying the TRUTH and calling it a lie. It is not about a physical man being crucified at all.
Christians worship and idolize the man in the story instead of embracing the TRUTH that the man is nothing but a personified character in a story. That character is the TRUTH personified. What does Truth thirst for Anna? What quenches the thirst of the Truth?
Start thinking for yourself instead of believing the lies and false doctrines you have been taught.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You need to repent of your own lukewarm wishy washy Christianity before you will comprehend the answer to that.
There is a vast difference between an outward appearance of repentance from carnal minded humans and and the repentance of an angel. When you figure that out you might understand the true meaning of repentance.
Many Christians claim to have repented but they still continue in sin. Their repentance is therefore in vain. They have not understood what it means to turn away from their sins and stop sinning. The spirit within them has not repented of anything when they remain in their lukewarm state where they are tossed to and fro by their own sins.

You did not, through all of that, give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement, "Repent".

I am trying to get you to think for yourself Anna instead of having answers handed to you on a golden platter.
Do you understand the difference between the spiritual concept of repentance and the physical concept of repentance?
Do you understand the difference between the repentance of a spirit and a carnal human effort of repentance?
What in your opinion is the difference between human repentance and the repentance of an angel?
Look closely at the scripture you are referencing. Is it talking to the congregation of humans at Laodicea or to the angel of the church?
Why would the scriptures be asking an angel to repent? Is the scripture talking to a literal individual angel or to the spirit adopted by the church in general?
Have any humans repented of anything at all when they continue in sin or change from one sin to another?
How many Christians follow Jesus sinless example and sin no more?
How should any humans go about changing the spirit or attitude which they have adopted in life when they understand their attitude is wishy washy and lukewarm? You can't do it by putting on a passionate outward appearance when you are not passionate about something. You can always decide to become totally cold if you cannot become totally hot. Either way, apparently lukewarm comfort makes the bible God sick.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:15:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:12:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:05:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 6:41:11 PM, annanicole wrote:

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never seen anyone sling such crazy interpretations on passages.

The bible interprets itself as you can see if you are not blind. The temple is referring to the body of Christ which is not a human body either but a spiritual body.

Your spiritual blindness and carnal minded preconceived ideas cause you to err.

Jesus always spoke in parables.

No, He didn't.

Obviously you do not believe the bible which claims he did.
Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Really? As He hung on the cross, He said "I thirst". I take this to mean He was thirsty. Why don't you explain the metaphorical significance?

Because you really are not interested at all. All you want to do is mock and ridicule what you don't want to understand.

I guess that amounts to no answer at all. For that, I gather that you've decided that Jesus was not thirsty.

The story book character was talking about spiritual things not about physical things. Imaginary characters do whatever their authors decide they do.
Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?

Absolutely, if he was very thirsty/dehydrated. Are you trying to say that a man scourged by the Romans, carried His own cross, then was crucified would not request a drink of water?

If someone was physically being crucified do you really think they would be complaining of thirst or chatting with the spectators?

I think a man hanging on a cross in the scorching heat could very easily say, "I thirst".

Besides that Hebrews 6:6 implies that Christ can be crucified afresh daily. I guess according to you, he must get a drink of water daily to refresh himself since he goes through the same crucifixion experience daily?

Pure nonsense.

Heb 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

How many fall away daily Anna? Do they literally crucify the Son of God afresh? If he is not literally crucified daily by those who fall away, what makes you think he was literally crucified in the crucifixion story? The story is about people crucifying the TRUTH and calling it a lie. It is not about a physical man being crucified at all.
Christians worship and idolize the man in the story instead of embracing the TRUTH that the man is nothing but a personified character in a story. That character is the TRUTH personified. What does Truth thirst for Anna? What quenches the thirst of the Truth?
Start thinking for yourself instead of believing the lies and false doctrines you have been taught.

Oh, come on and give us one of your silly metaphorical meanings to the simple words, "I thirst" instead of disguising the fact that you either can't manufacture anything right at the moment, or else whatever you've come up with sounds so ridiculous as to be self-refuting.

It is reported by severe dehydration played a role in the death of victims of crucifixions, especially when one considers that they were generally imprisoned and beaten beforehand. And it is reported that Jesus, as He was being crucified, said "I thirst." SkyAngel has decided that the Lord really wasn't thirsty, i. e. the request has some sort of crazy metaphorical meaning. It's funny that through 2-3 posts now, no metaphorical meaning has been set forth. I find it odd that you'd resort to "crucify Christ daily" as some sort of argument. One thing's for sure: no meaning has been given.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:57:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:


He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You need to repent of your own lukewarm wishy washy Christianity before you will comprehend the answer to that.
There is a vast difference between an outward appearance of repentance from carnal minded humans and and the repentance of an angel. When you figure that out you might understand the true meaning of repentance.
Many Christians claim to have repented but they still continue in sin. Their repentance is therefore in vain. They have not understood what it means to turn away from their sins and stop sinning. The spirit within them has not repented of anything when they remain in their lukewarm state where they are tossed to and fro by their own sins.

You did not, through all of that, give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement, "Repent".


I am trying to get you to think for yourself Anna instead of having answers handed to you on a golden platter.

I haven't had any answers handed to me on a platter.

Do you understand the difference between the spiritual concept of repentance and the physical concept of repentance?

There is no "physical concept" of repentance.

I asked you to give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement to the Laodecian church. That's all. He said, "Repent." I'll take the classic dictionary meaning of the word, as given by Thayer and Liddell/Scott.

What was it that you said it meant?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:58:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Whether you call it a parable of not makes no difference to the fact that his words were not directed at humans but at spirits. It is about a spirit speaking to spirits not about a historical man speaking to carnal minded humans who then attempt to put on a religious show and change their outward appearances.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, nor is it a prophesy concerning Him.

How blind you are.

Well, let's see.

"The 'stammering lips' are those of the Assyrian conquerors, whose speech would seem to the men of Judah as a barbarous patois." - Ellicott's Commentary

How does the commentator get that idea from the context? There is nothing about Assyrian conquerors in the context.

"For the prophet here evidently intends to express the punishment of their dulness. With stammering lips, and another tongue " By people of a strange language, whom he will bring among them, and into whose power he will deliver them; will he speak to this people " Seeing they will not hear him speaking by his prophets and ministers, in their own language, they shall hear their enemies speaking to them in a strange language." - Benson's Commentry

That is merely another commentators personal interpretation. It says nothing in the context of Isaiah 28 about God speaking to them through their enemies or punishing their dullness by making them listen to a language they don't even understand. How stupid is that?

"God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God." - Barnes Notes

Why would God want to teach anyone anything in a foreign language which they do not even understand? They would learn nothing at all unless they could understand the language in the first place. That is the most stupid way to teach anyone anything. You would think that the logical thing to do would be to speak to people in their own language if you want to teach them anything at all. If you wanted to teach someone something, would you use a language they could understand or one they could not understand? If they don't learn what you want them to learn, would you go ahead and humiliate them for their stupidity by talking to them in a language they can't even understand?

"Your drunken questions shall be answered by the severe lessons from God conveyed through the Assyrians and Babylonians; the dialect of these, though Semitic, like the Hebrew, was so far different as to sound to the Jews like the speech of stammerers " - Jamisson, Faucett, Brown

Drunken people cannot even understand people who speak to them in their own language. Their understanding is impaired by their own drunkenness. They make fools of themselves. No one else needs to make a fool of them.

"he would speak to them in a more severe and in a rougher manner in his providences, and bring a people against them of a strange language they understood not, and so should not be able to treat and make peace with them, and who would carry them captive into a strange land; which was fulfilled by bringing the Chaldean army upon them" - Gill's Exposition

I ask again, Why would God want to teach anyone anything in a foreign language which they do not even understand? Why would God or any logical being want to punish anyone by causing them to not understand something and causing them to be incapable of making peace with their enemies?
God could have given them understanding and made them capable and willing of doing what he wanted them to do in the first place. He can give people desires and take desires away so why didn't he? God can manipulate anyone any way he wants to manipulate them.

"Isaiah parries the gibe with a terrible threat. Jehovah is about to employ a more uncouth language, to which their mocking description will fully apply, viz., the harsh barbarous accents of the Assyrian invaders." - Cambridge Commentary

"JUDAH'S PUNISHMENT. God will retort on the Jews their scorn of his prophet, and, as they will not be taught by his utterances, which they find to be childish and unrefined, will teach them by utterances still more unrefined - those of the Assyrians, which will be quite as monotonous and quite as full of minutiae as Isaiah's." - Pulpit Commentary

If a person thinks a teacher is being childish and unrefined in the way they teach something, what is the point of giving them a teacher who is more childish and unrefined to teach them the same lesson? If a student thinks the first teacher is childish and unrefined and they scorn that teacher because of it, do you think they are going to understand one who does not even speak their own language?

It just seems like every commentator and every commentary agrees with me - but then again, none of them had the light switch flipped on as SkyAngel and her cult of one (her poor husband) do. Nobody else in the world sees it as she (they) do; therefore, everyone else is blind - but the Space Cadet is enlightened. After all, who else would have said that when the Lord said, "I thirst", he was not thirsty? Who else could have told us that when the Lord said, "Repent", He really didn't mean for them to repent?

So the commentators asked for your opinion and then agreed with you, did they?
It seems to me that you agree with the commentators and don't even question them. Is that because you cannot think for yourself or you are too lazy to think for yourself? It seems to me that you like having answers handed to you on a golden platter so you have no need to think for yourself.

If you see a space cadet in me you are seeing nothing but reflection of yourself in the pot you call black. When you stop being that space cadet you will stop seeing your own reflection in me. I am your mirror.

Spirits are never physically thirsty. Neither are imaginary characters ever physically thirsty. Their thirst is as imaginary as they are.
After all, did Jesus himself not say that whoever believes in him will NEVER THIRST? Did he not believe in himself?
Could he not drink from his own well?

It is impossible for carnal minded people who live and walks after the flesh to repent from anything. They cannot cease from sin according to 2 Peter 2.
Take notice of verse 14 "Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children":

In context it is talking about the religious people, false prophets and teachers who lead others astray.
Now please explain how those religious people who cannot cease from sin can repent if according to Peter they cannot cease from sin?

Does not repentance mean that you cease from sin and sin no more?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:55:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:58:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

You can either look at the outward appearances of his words and be led astray by them or you can try to understand the parable and how it applies to all generations for all eternity. Truth remains truth for all eternity. It does not change. It can however be perceived as a lie by those who are blinded by its light.

And the truth is that Jesus did not always speak in parables.

Whether you call it a parable of not makes no difference to the fact that his words were not directed at humans but at spirits. It is about a spirit speaking to spirits not about a historical man speaking to carnal minded humans who then attempt to put on a religious show and change their outward appearances.

Then what does speaking in another tongue mean to you if it is not referring to speaking in parables?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The passage has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, nor is it a prophesy concerning Him.

How blind you are.

Well, let's see.

"The 'stammering lips' are those of the Assyrian conquerors, whose speech would seem to the men of Judah as a barbarous patois." - Ellicott's Commentary

How does the commentator get that idea from the context? There is nothing about Assyrian conquerors in the context.

"For the prophet here evidently intends to express the punishment of their dulness. With stammering lips, and another tongue " By people of a strange language, whom he will bring among them, and into whose power he will deliver them; will he speak to this people " Seeing they will not hear him speaking by his prophets and ministers, in their own language, they shall hear their enemies speaking to them in a strange language." - Benson's Commentry

That is merely another commentators personal interpretation. It says nothing in the context of Isaiah 28 about God speaking to them through their enemies or punishing their dullness by making them listen to a language they don't even understand. How stupid is that?

"God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God." - Barnes Notes

Why would God want to teach anyone anything in a foreign language which they do not even understand? They would learn nothing at all unless they could understand the language in the first place. That is the most stupid way to teach anyone anything. You would think that the logical thing to do would be to speak to people in their own language if you want to teach them anything at all. If you wanted to teach someone something, would you use a language they could understand or one they could not understand? If they don't learn what you want them to learn, would you go ahead and humiliate them for their stupidity by talking to them in a language they can't even understand?

"Your drunken questions shall be answered by the severe lessons from God conveyed through the Assyrians and Babylonians; the dialect of these, though Semitic, like the Hebrew, was so far different as to sound to the Jews like the speech of stammerers " - Jamisson, Faucett, Brown

Drunken people cannot even understand people who speak to them in their own language. Their understanding is impaired by their own drunkenness. They make fools of themselves. No one else needs to make a fool of them.

"he would speak to them in a more severe and in a rougher manner in his providences, and bring a people against them of a strange language they understood not, and so should not be able to treat and make peace with them, and who would carry them captive into a strange land; which was fulfilled by bringing the Chaldean army upon them" - Gill's Exposition

I ask again, Why would God want to teach anyone anything in a foreign language which they do not even understand? Why would God or any logical being want to punish anyone by causing them to not understand something and causing them to be incapable of making peace with their enemies?
God could have given them understanding and made them capable and willing of doing what he wanted them to do in the first place. He can give people desires and take desires away so why didn't he? God can manipulate anyone any way he wants to manipulate them.

"Isaiah parries the gibe with a terrible threat. Jehovah is about to employ a more uncouth language, to which their mocking description will fully apply, viz., the harsh barbarous accents of the Assyrian invaders." - Cambridge Commentary

"JUDAH'S PUNISHMENT. God will retort on the Jews their scorn of his prophet, and, as they will not be taught by his utterances, which they find to be childish and unrefined, will teach them by utterances still more unrefined - those of the Assyrians, which will be quite as monotonous and quite as full of minutiae as Isaiah's." - Pulpit Commentary

If a person thinks a teacher is being childish and unrefined in the way they teach something, what is the point of giving them a teacher who is more childish and unrefined to teach them the same lesson? If a student thinks the first teacher is childish and unrefined and they scorn that teacher because of it, do you think they are going to understand one who does not even speak their own language?

It just seems like every commentator and every commentary agrees with me - but then again, none of them had the light switch flipped on as SkyAngel and her cult of one (her poor husband) do. Nobody else in the world sees it as she (they) do; therefore, everyone else is blind - but the Space Cadet is enlightened. After all, who else would have said that when the Lord said, "I thirst", he was not thirsty? Who else could have told us that when the Lord said, "Repent", He really didn't mean for them to repent?

So the commentators asked for your opinion and then agreed with you, did they?
It seems to me that you agree with the commentators and don't even question them. Is that because you cannot think for yourself or you are too lazy to think for yourself? It seems to me that you like having answers handed to you on a golden platter so you have no need to think for yourself.

If you see a space cadet in me you are seeing nothing but reflection of yourself in the pot you call black. When you stop being that space cadet you will stop seeing your own reflection in me. I am your mirror.

Spirits are never physically thirsty. Neither are imaginary characters ever physically thirsty.

Yet Jesus said, "I thirst." Therefore, at the time Jesus was not solely a spirit, nor was He an imaginary character.

Does anyone recall SkyAngel telling us what the metaphorical meaning of the statement, "I thirst" is?

Answer: nope. All the Space Cadet can do is say, "Think for yourself" - as if anybody else in the world could come up with the ridiculous meanings that she assigns.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:56:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:15:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The story book character was talking about spiritual things not about physical things. Imaginary characters do whatever their authors decide they do.
Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?

Absolutely, if he was very thirsty/dehydrated. Are you trying to say that a man scourged by the Romans, carried His own cross, then was crucified would not request a drink of water?

Imaginary characters do whatever the authors of those characters decide they will do.
I am saying the story is not a historical account of any supernatural person being crucified.

If someone was physically being crucified do you really think they would be complaining of thirst or chatting with the spectators?

I think a man hanging on a cross in the scorching heat could very easily say, "I thirst".

Sure he would. He could have also asked for a donut to dunk in the drink because he was hungry as well. He just had to have that drink of vinegar before he died, didn't he?. It was very important to add that to the bible story so others who are crucified daily would be able to follow his example and know that they need to ask for a drink of vinegar before they die.
According to Matthew 27:34, he didn't even drink it when they gave it to him. He merely tasted it. Apparently that sour wine or vinegar was a common drink for the roman soldiers so why didn't he drink it when they offered it to him?
According to John 19:30 he did receive it.
Which one do you believe? Did he drink the vinegar or not?
What was the point of stating that he was thirsty? What spiritual lesson do you learn from it?

Have you ever heard the following story?
The story is told of a young student who went to his spiritual teacher and asked the question, "Master, how can I truly find God?" The teacher asked the student to accompany him to the river which ran by the village and invited him to go into the water. When they got to the middle of the stream, the teacher said, "Please immerse yourself in the water." The student did as he was instructed, whereupon the teacher put his hands on the young man's head and held him under the water. Presently the student began to struggle. The master held him under still. A moment passed and the student was thrashing and beating the water and air with his arms. Still, the master held him under the water. Finally, the student was released and shot up from the water, lungs aching and gasping for air. The teacher waited for a few moments and then said, "When you desire God as truly as you desired to breathe the air you just breathed -- then you shall find God."

How much do you thirst and what do you thirst for? Water or air or God?
Was the character Jesus in the story thirsting for physical water or thirsting for God? If he was thirsting for God why was that? Do you think it might be because the Spirit of God had forsaken him? Matt 27:46

Besides that Hebrews 6:6 implies that Christ can be crucified afresh daily. I guess according to you, he must get a drink of water daily to refresh himself since he goes through the same crucifixion experience daily?

Pure nonsense.
Exactly, the idea of a physical daily crucifixion of Christ is pure nonsense. The idea of any physical crucifixion of Christ is nonsense since Christ is a spirit.
Christ was never physically crucified because a spirit cannot be physically crucified. All stories about Christs crucifixion are as metaphoric as the concept of a daily crucifixion in Hebrews.

Heb 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

How many fall away daily Anna? Do they literally crucify the Son of God afresh? If he is not literally crucified daily by those who fall away, what makes you think he was literally crucified in the crucifixion story? The story is about people crucifying the TRUTH and calling it a lie. It is not about a physical man being crucified at all.
Christians worship and idolize the man in the story instead of embracing the TRUTH that the man is nothing but a personified character in a story. That character is the TRUTH personified. What does Truth thirst for Anna? What quenches the thirst of the Truth?
Start thinking for yourself instead of believing the lies and false doctrines you have been taught.

Oh, come on and give us one of your silly metaphorical meanings to the simple words, "I thirst" instead of disguising the fact that you either can't manufacture anything right at the moment, or else whatever you've come up with sounds so ridiculous as to be self-refuting.

What was Christ thirsting for Anna?
What does a spirit thirst for?
Use your brain Anna and think for a change instead of simply thinking about physical thirst and physical water.

It is reported by severe dehydration played a role in the death of victims of crucifixions, especially when one considers that they were generally imprisoned and beaten beforehand. And it is reported that Jesus, as He was being crucified, said "I thirst." SkyAngel has decided that the Lord really wasn't thirsty, i. e. the request has some sort of crazy metaphorical meaning. It's funny that through 2-3 posts now, no metaphorical meaning has been set forth. I find it odd that you'd resort to "crucify Christ daily" as some sort of argument. One thing's for sure: no meaning has been given.

I explained to you that I an trying to get you to think for yourself Anna instead of handing you the answers on a golden platter. Can you manage to think or are you incapable of thinking? Can you thirst for anything besides water?
Was the story character asking for a drink of water because he was thirsty for water or was he thirsty for God because God had forsaken the character?
If the character Christ was God, how can God have forsaken him? Did God forsake himself? Could God not quench his own thirst ?
Do you understand the difference between spiritual thirst and physical thirst?

When will you thirst for the Truth Anna? Do you need to wait till you are being crucified or till your God forsakes you ? Are you going to worry about your physical thirst when your God forsakes you? He will forsake you. You are no better than Jesus and he did forsake Jesus, did he not?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 8:09:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:56:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:15:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The story book character was talking about spiritual things not about physical things. Imaginary characters do whatever their authors decide they do.
Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?

Absolutely, if he was very thirsty/dehydrated. Are you trying to say that a man scourged by the Romans, carried His own cross, then was crucified would not request a drink of water?

Imaginary characters do whatever the authors of those characters decide they will do.
I am saying the story is not a historical account of any supernatural person being crucified.

This was your question: "Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?"

My answer was, "Yes"

Apparently you do not like that, so you just inform us that the whole she-bang is fictional!

If someone was physically being crucified do you really think they would be complaining of thirst or chatting with the spectators?

I think a man hanging on a cross in the scorching heat could very easily say, "I thirst".

Sure he would. He could have also asked for a donut to dunk in the drink because he was hungry as well. He just had to have that drink of vinegar before he died, didn't he?. It was very important to add that to the bible story so others who are crucified daily would be able to follow his example and know that they need to ask for a drink of vinegar before they die.
According to Matthew 27:34, he didn't even drink it when they gave it to him. He merely tasted it. Apparently that sour wine or vinegar was a common drink for the roman soldiers so why didn't he drink it when they offered it to him?
According to John 19:30 he did receive it.
Which one do you believe? Did he drink the vinegar or not?
What was the point of stating that he was thirsty? What spiritual lesson do you learn from it?

Have you ever heard the following story?
The story is told of a young student who went to his spiritual teacher and asked the question, "Master, how can I truly find God?" The teacher asked the student to accompany him to the river which ran by the village and invited him to go into the water. When they got to the middle of the stream, the teacher said, "Please immerse yourself in the water." The student did as he was instructed, whereupon the teacher put his hands on the young man's head and held him under the water. Presently the student began to struggle. The master held him under still. A moment passed and the student was thrashing and beating the water and air with his arms. Still, the master held him under the water. Finally, the student was released and shot up from the water, lungs aching and gasping for air. The teacher waited for a few moments and then said, "When you desire God as truly as you desired to breathe the air you just breathed -- then you shall find God."

How much do you thirst and what do you thirst for? Water or air or God?
Was the character Jesus in the story thirsting for physical water or thirsting for God? If he was thirsting for God why was that? Do you think it might be because the Spirit of God had forsaken him? Matt 27:46

Ohhhh, so when Jesus said "I thirst", he was not physically thirsty - mainly because He never existed! But in a secondary sense, the guy was just thirsting for God.

Besides that Hebrews 6:6 implies that Christ can be crucified afresh daily. I guess according to you, he must get a drink of water daily to refresh himself since he goes through the same crucifixion experience daily?

Pure nonsense.
Exactly, the idea of a physical daily crucifixion of Christ is pure nonsense. The idea of any physical crucifixion of Christ is nonsense since Christ is a spirit.

No, He was a real person - not solely a spirit.

Christ was never physically crucified because a spirit cannot be physically crucified. All stories about Christs crucifixion are as metaphoric as the concept of a daily crucifixion in Hebrews.


Heb 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

How many fall away daily Anna? Do they literally crucify the Son of God afresh? If he is not literally crucified daily by those who fall away, what makes you think he was literally crucified in the crucifixion story? The story is about people crucifying the TRUTH and calling it a lie. It is not about a physical man being crucified at all.
Christians worship and idolize the man in the story instead of embracing the TRUTH that the man is nothing but a personified character in a story. That character is the TRUTH personified. What does Truth thirst for Anna? What quenches the thirst of the Truth?
Start thinking for yourself instead of believing the lies and false doctrines you have been taught.

Oh, come on and give us one of your silly metaphorical meanings to the simple words, "I thirst" instead of disguising the fact that you either can't manufacture anything right at the moment, or else whatever you've come up with sounds so ridiculous as to be self-refuting.

Very well. You finally came up with the expected ridiculous meaning to "I thirst" - one that no one except your beleaguered husband would ever believe.

It is reported by severe dehydration played a role in the death of victims of crucifixions, especially when one considers that they were generally imprisoned and beaten beforehand. And it is reported that Jesus, as He was being crucified, said "I thirst." SkyAngel has decided that the Lord really wasn't thirsty, i. e. the request has some sort of crazy metaphorical meaning. It's funny that through 2-3 posts now, no metaphorical meaning has been set forth. I find it odd that you'd resort to "crucify Christ daily" as some sort of argument. One thing's for sure: no meaning has been given.

I explained to you that I an trying to get you to think for yourself Anna instead of handing you the answers on a golden platter. Can you manage to think or are you incapable of thinking? Can you thirst for anything besides water?

Nice. When your husband comes in from work or a long day out and says, "I'm hungry", what does he really want?

When will you thirst for the Truth Anna? Do you need to wait till you are being crucified or till your God forsakes you ? Are you going to worry about your physical thirst when your God forsakes you? He will forsake you. You are no better than Jesus and he did forsake Jesus, did he not?

Just some more of your ludicrous nonsense which hits its high note with your atheistic claim that Jesus was not even a real person. Jesus never really lived, did He? It's all made up, isn't it? In fact, when He prayed, He wasn't talking to anyone in particular, was He?

Do you pray at night, "My father, Who are in heaven"? Of course not. You can't.

You are merely an atheist who has bathed and spruced up a little. You'll say sarcastically that you do not believe in a God, a man off in the heavens. The truth is that you do not believe in the God of the Bible at all.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?

Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

"They know not what they do." is not talking about ones physical awareness of their own physical actions. It is talking about their spiritual awareness of their own spiritual state. It is talking about an awareness of ones own ignorance and wrong attitudes. The physical or natural is metaphorical or symbolic of the spiritual concepts.
What appears to be referring to physical things in the bible stories is actually referring to spiritual things.

You cannot just take one word or sentence out of the context and ask for a metaphorical meaning of a single word. You need to look at the story as whole. The concept of the whole story is to teach a spiritual lesson about attitudes and judgments, bondage and freedom. The idea of the story is not to merely describe some historical event.

The whole idea of the story is to set people free from the things which have them in bondage. That bondage includes religious bondage and the worship of idols. It also includes the bondage of your own carnal mind which looks only on outward appearances and can see no further. Only Truth can set people free from their deceptions which include their self deceptions. However, that Truth will not set them free if they continue to call the Truth a lie and crucify it daily. The reason it will not set them free is because the consequence of rejection of Truth is to live in a lie and be deceived.
Truth personified will forgive all who condemn and reject it but can they ever forgive themselves for rejecting the Truth once they realize what they have done?

Do you prefer to idolize a man as God or live in the Truth which sets you free from idolatry?

The Way, the Truth and the Life is personified through all who live and walk in it. It is not just personified in one man named Jesus.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 8:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?


Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

Could you name for us ONE great student of the Bible - ONE published Bible commentator - who assigns the absurd meanings to words and phrases that you do? Or all they all "ignorant" and "uncomprehending"?

I do not request your forgiveness, nor would I accept it - for I have done or said nothing wrong.

Answer the question. I'd love to find someone of your mentality who managed to get published. I'm sure it's available online. I'm not speaking of someone who totally agrees with you. I'm asking for someone who mostly agrees with you.

* Addendum: Now we all know that no name, no commentary, no publication will be forthcoming. You see, SkyAngel (the one who claims Jesus never existed) is apparently the only person on earth (other than her poor husband, supposedly) who takes these positions. Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 9:47:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:18:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:57:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:


He said to the church at Laodecia, "Repent." I take that He wanted them to repent. Why don't you give us the metaphorical meaning?

You need to repent of your own lukewarm wishy washy Christianity before you will comprehend the answer to that.
There is a vast difference between an outward appearance of repentance from carnal minded humans and and the repentance of an angel. When you figure that out you might understand the true meaning of repentance.
Many Christians claim to have repented but they still continue in sin. Their repentance is therefore in vain. They have not understood what it means to turn away from their sins and stop sinning. The spirit within them has not repented of anything when they remain in their lukewarm state where they are tossed to and fro by their own sins.

You did not, through all of that, give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement, "Repent".


I am trying to get you to think for yourself Anna instead of having answers handed to you on a golden platter.

I haven't had any answers handed to me on a platter.

You do not see them even I when I do give them to you. Your spiritual blindness stops you from seeing them.


Do you understand the difference between the spiritual concept of repentance and the physical concept of repentance?

There is no "physical concept" of repentance.

Sure there is. It is called physically turning over a new leaf. People try to do it all the time and fail miserably because they cannot keep up the outward appearance of ceasing from their own addictions. That kind of repentance is what turns people into hypocrites. They do one thing on all outward appearances and their heart is not really in what they are doing.
Eg, An alcoholic who attempts to change their ways by changing their outward appearance and not drinking in public so it looks like they have repented to any observers but their desires have still not changed so they end up drinking in secret or going back to their old ways eventually because they can't keep up the facade. They simply cannot cease from sin in spite of trying to turn over a new leaf and repenting from their old habits.

True repentance is about changing ones heart attitude toward something. It is about changing ones desires and tastes. There is much more involved in it than simply changing ones outward physical actions. It takes more than just an outward action to change an attitude and a desire. It needs to be a change of heart and mind before it is a permanent change.

Plenty of people put on an outward show of purity when their hearts are still filthy inside. Religion is filled with those kind of hypocrites.


I asked you to give us the metaphorical meaning of Jesus's statement to the Laodecian church. That's all. He said, "Repent." I'll take the classic dictionary meaning of the word, as given by Thayer and Liddell/Scott.

What was it that you said it meant?

Repent means to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins.
Metaphorically it applies to all believers not just to the Laodiceans. It implies that all believers should abhor their lukewarm hypocrisy and change their ways.
How do you suggest the lukewarm hypocrites in any church repent of their lukewarmness and what should they do to make amends for it?
Should they set themselves on fire to become really HOT ? Should they do that literally or metaphorically?

Honestly Anna, are you really that ignorant that you cannot understand that repenting from lukewarmness is a figure of speech and something you need to take metaphorically or spiritually and it has nothing to do with physical actions?
How exactly does anyone change their attitude from being in a place of non committal ( lukewarmness) about something to being absolutely passionate or hot about it or to being absolutely cold or not caring less about it? How does one repent from lukewarmness? What do you need to do?
Can you force yourself to be passionate about something you are not passionate about in the first place?
Can you force yourself to not care about something so that you are totally cold and unfeeling toward it?
If you are non committal or lukewarm about anything in the first place, how exactly do you change that kind of attitude for "the better" if you do not think being hot or cold about it is a better attitude anyway?

Repent is a word which means nothing to those who simply cannot change their attitudes in the first place. It is like telling a child to say sorry when they are not sorry at all. They might do as they are told on outward appearances but in their heart they have not repented of whatever they were accused of doing wrong.
People do not simply change their minds because someone tells them to change it. People usually only change their minds when their circumstances cause them to change their minds or when someone convinces them their original mindset or attitude was wrong.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 10:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:55:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:58:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Spirits are never physically thirsty. Neither are imaginary characters ever physically thirsty.

Yet Jesus said, "I thirst." Therefore, at the time Jesus was not solely a spirit, nor was He an imaginary character.

He is a character in a story book Anna. You can believe he was a historical character if you wish but it simply makes no sense to believe that some supernatural character named God would come down to this planet in the form of a real human and pretend to be his own son to set an example for humans to follow and set them free from so called sins and then make those humans totally incapable of following that example and incapable of being sinless. To follow Jesus is to follow his example, is it not? Can you heal the sick and raise the dead like he did in the story? Are you sinless like he was in the story? Is any Christian as sinless as Jesus was in the story? Do any of them actually raise the dead and heal every sick person who comes to them and asks to be healed ? There are none Anna. There are no followers of that character on this planet because there is not one person who can follow such a supernatural example.
The characters physical actions cannot be followed in a physical sense. They are spiritual things he did. You can follow them spiritually by raising spiritually dead people from their spiritual sleep but you will never raise a physically dead person from the grave. Therefore logically the story must be about spiritual things not about physical things or historical things at all.

Does anyone recall SkyAngel telling us what the metaphorical meaning of the statement, "I thirst" is?

Answer: nope. All the Space Cadet can do is say, "Think for yourself" - as if anybody else in the world could come up with the ridiculous meanings that she assigns.

I told you "I thirst" metaphorically is referring to spiritual thirst not physical thirst.
Why are you so blind Anna?
Why don't you want to understand what I am telling you?
Is it so hard for you to give up your idol worship of the man named Jesus and follow the Truth instead?
Do you wish to keep following a false Christ who is nothing but an imaginary character in a story book?
That story character is leading you astray if you believe he was a historical figure who had supernatural powers.

Phil 2:7-8 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If the Jesus in the story did what the above scripture says he did and took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men like any other man then he had no supernatural powers which could raise the dead or miraculously heal the sick or turn water into wine or walk on water in reality. He had no more powers than any other man IF he was really made in the LIKENESS of men. If he had supernatural powers he was never made in the likeness of men unless all men have the same supernatural powers. If men have supernatural powers then all men can die and rise from the dead the same as Jesus did.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 10:44:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:09:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:56:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:15:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The story book character was talking about spiritual things not about physical things. Imaginary characters do whatever their authors decide they do.
Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?

Absolutely, if he was very thirsty/dehydrated. Are you trying to say that a man scourged by the Romans, carried His own cross, then was crucified would not request a drink of water?

Imaginary characters do whatever the authors of those characters decide they will do.
I am saying the story is not a historical account of any supernatural person being crucified.

This was your question: "Do you really think a drink of water would help relieve any physical suffering of a man who was being physically crucified?"

My answer was, "Yes"

Apparently you do not like that, so you just inform us that the whole she-bang is fictional!

You answer is totally logical from a carnal minded point of view Anna.
I have no objections to your carnal minded perception and literal interpretation. I understand it as much as I understand a childs perception who thinks Santa is a real person.
That child would also object to the idea of Santa being fictional but the Truth is that magical characters are as fictional as their supernatural or magical powers.

What was the point of stating that he was thirsty? What spiritual lesson do you learn from it?

Have you ever heard the following story?
The story is told of a young student who went to his spiritual teacher and asked the question, "Master, how can I truly find God?" The teacher asked the student to accompany him to the river which ran by the village and invited him to go into the water. When they got to the middle of the stream, the teacher said, "Please immerse yourself in the water." The student did as he was instructed, whereupon the teacher put his hands on the young man's head and held him under the water. Presently the student began to struggle. The master held him under still. A moment passed and the student was thrashing and beating the water and air with his arms. Still, the master held him under the water. Finally, the student was released and shot up from the water, lungs aching and gasping for air. The teacher waited for a few moments and then said, "When you desire God as truly as you desired to breathe the air you just breathed -- then you shall find God."

How much do you thirst and what do you thirst for? Water or air or God?
Was the character Jesus in the story thirsting for physical water or thirsting for God? If he was thirsting for God why was that? Do you think it might be because the Spirit of God had forsaken him? Matt 27:46

Ohhhh, so when Jesus said "I thirst", he was not physically thirsty - mainly because He never existed! But in a secondary sense, the guy was just thirsting for God.

The character in the story was not real. His thirst was not real. The authors of the stories are merely teaching spiritual morals and principles of life through the words and actions of the characters in their stories. A few people can understand the difference between a historical book and an allegorical book. Any logical thinking mature person can comprehend that any man with supernatural powers in any story is not a historical character but a mythical character who is no different to any other mythical character with supernatural powers.


Besides that Hebrews 6:6 implies that Christ can be crucified afresh daily. I guess according to you, he must get a drink of water daily to refresh himself since he goes through the same crucifixion experience daily?

Pure nonsense.
Exactly, the idea of a physical daily crucifixion of Christ is pure nonsense. The idea of any physical crucifixion of Christ is nonsense since Christ is a spirit.

No, He was a real person - not solely a spirit.

I am the same spirit in a real body. I am the spirit of Truth in a human body. I am the spirit of Life in a human body. I am that I am.
My physical body can be destroyed but I cannot. I have always existed as a spirit for all eternity. I am older than dirt but my body is very young compared to me.
If you have ears to hear you will hear what the SPIRIT is saying. If you don't you will think the words you are reading come from a mad old woman who thinks she is God.

Her body is merely the temple of the Spirit within the body.
The temple can be destroyed. The Spirit cannot.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:20:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:09:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 7:56:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:15:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:27:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Christ was never physically crucified because a spirit cannot be physically crucified. All stories about Christs crucifixion are as metaphoric as the concept of a daily crucifixion in Hebrews.


Heb 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

How many fall away daily Anna? Do they literally crucify the Son of God afresh? If he is not literally crucified daily by those who fall away, what makes you think he was literally crucified in the crucifixion story? The story is about people crucifying the TRUTH and calling it a lie. It is not about a physical man being crucified at all.
Christians worship and idolize the man in the story instead of embracing the TRUTH that the man is nothing but a personified character in a story. That character is the TRUTH personified. What does Truth thirst for Anna? What quenches the thirst of the Truth?
Start thinking for yourself instead of believing the lies and false doctrines you have been taught.

Oh, come on and give us one of your silly metaphorical meanings to the simple words, "I thirst" instead of disguising the fact that you either can't manufacture anything right at the moment, or else whatever you've come up with sounds so ridiculous as to be self-refuting.

Very well. You finally came up with the expected ridiculous meaning to "I thirst" - one that no one except your beleaguered husband would ever believe.

You might think it is ridiculous to thirst for "God" Anna but those who thirst for it don't think it is ridiculous at all.
When you are forsaken, you might understand the meaning of thirsting for some support or comfort or assurance or whatever else you are deprived of. The word thirst can definitely be perceived as physical thirst but till you understand spiritual thirst you will never understand what it really means to be spiritually thirsty due to being spiritually deprived and forsaken.
Religion spiritually deprives people of the Truth when they teach false doctrines and preach a false gospel and get people to worship a mythical character, a false Christ, as God.

When will you thirst for the Truth Anna? Do you need to wait till you are being crucified or till your God forsakes you ? Are you going to worry about your physical thirst when your God forsakes you? He will forsake you. You are no better than Jesus and he did forsake Jesus, did he not?

Just some more of your ludicrous nonsense which hits its high note with your atheistic claim that Jesus was not even a real person. Jesus never really lived, did He? It's all made up, isn't it? In fact, when He prayed, He wasn't talking to anyone in particular, was He?

Do you pray at night, "My father, Who are in heaven"? Of course not. You can't.

I have no need to indulge in vain repetitions to please some mythical character.

You are merely an atheist who has bathed and spruced up a little. You'll say sarcastically that you do not believe in a God, a man off in the heavens. The truth is that you do not believe in the God of the Bible at all.

I am not an atheist at all. I believe in a real God which I can see and hear in reality through LIFE itself. God is the Spirit of LIFE which manifest through ALL of Life.
Life is a paradox which contradicts itself constantly. It has no individual body as an individual body of some supernatural entity. It manifest through ALL bodies in reality even through you Anna but the spirit which I see manifest through you is the spirit of unbelief, doubt and mockery. It is definitely not the spirit of Love which embraces and forgives its enemies or opposition and understands them and why they do and say what they do.

Whether I believe in the bible God or not depends on how you define and interpret that character. I do not believe in a mythical character in the sky or a supernatural father figure in heaven. I do believe in Love and in Life. I can recognize the spirit of Love and Life when I see it and when I do, you could say I see God manifest in physical reality through Life on this planet.

Heaven is within me and within you. The "Father figure" represents the mature version of yourself within you. The mature version of you is what provides for the immature version of you. It is what comforts you when there is no one else to comfort you. It is what molly coddles you when no one else does. It is what punishes you when you feel you deserve it.
The kingdom of God is within you. It is not something that will fall out of the sky one day. Hopefully you will wake up to that reality one day and stop waiting for your invisible supernatural friend to appear on Earth one day in some literal clouds.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 8:52:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?


Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

Could you name for us ONE great student of the Bible - ONE published Bible commentator - who assigns the absurd meanings to words and phrases that you do? Or all they all "ignorant" and "uncomprehending"?

I do not request your forgiveness, nor would I accept it - for I have done or said nothing wrong.

Answer the question. I'd love to find someone of your mentality who managed to get published. I'm sure it's available online. I'm not speaking of someone who totally agrees with you. I'm asking for someone who mostly agrees with you.

* Addendum: Now we all know that no name, no commentary, no publication will be forthcoming. You see, SkyAngel (the one who claims Jesus never existed) is apparently the only person on earth (other than her poor husband, supposedly) who takes these positions. Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse.

The difference between you and me Anna is that I do not need to rely on carnal minded commentators or publications to help me think for myself or to find the Truth.

The anointing which abides in me is my teacher. We are one.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Truth is the best teacher you can ever have. I hope you find that teacher one day and stop relying on your carnal minded commentators and their publications.

I need no one to agree with me in order for me to understand and agree with the Truth.
I need no support from carnal minded people who have no clue what they are talking about and who push false doctrines which make no logical sense.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:42:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:32:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:52:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?


Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

Could you name for us ONE great student of the Bible - ONE published Bible commentator - who assigns the absurd meanings to words and phrases that you do? Or all they all "ignorant" and "uncomprehending"?

I do not request your forgiveness, nor would I accept it - for I have done or said nothing wrong.

Answer the question. I'd love to find someone of your mentality who managed to get published. I'm sure it's available online. I'm not speaking of someone who totally agrees with you. I'm asking for someone who mostly agrees with you.

* Addendum: Now we all know that no name, no commentary, no publication will be forthcoming. You see, SkyAngel (the one who claims Jesus never existed) is apparently the only person on earth (other than her poor husband, supposedly) who takes these positions. Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse.

The difference between you and me Anna is that I do not need to rely on carnal minded commentators or publications to help me think for myself or to find the Truth.

The anointing which abides in me is my teacher. We are one.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Truth is the best teacher you can ever have. I hope you find that teacher one day and stop relying on your carnal minded commentators and their publications.

I need no one to agree with me in order for me to understand and agree with the Truth.
I need no support from carnal minded people who have no clue what they are talking about and who push false doctrines which make no logical sense.

I just said, "Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse."

Does anyone see any hint of such a thing?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 2:02:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:42:21 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:32:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:52:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?


Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

Could you name for us ONE great student of the Bible - ONE published Bible commentator - who assigns the absurd meanings to words and phrases that you do? Or all they all "ignorant" and "uncomprehending"?

I do not request your forgiveness, nor would I accept it - for I have done or said nothing wrong.

Answer the question. I'd love to find someone of your mentality who managed to get published. I'm sure it's available online. I'm not speaking of someone who totally agrees with you. I'm asking for someone who mostly agrees with you.

* Addendum: Now we all know that no name, no commentary, no publication will be forthcoming. You see, SkyAngel (the one who claims Jesus never existed) is apparently the only person on earth (other than her poor husband, supposedly) who takes these positions. Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse.

The difference between you and me Anna is that I do not need to rely on carnal minded commentators or publications to help me think for myself or to find the Truth.

The anointing which abides in me is my teacher. We are one.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Truth is the best teacher you can ever have. I hope you find that teacher one day and stop relying on your carnal minded commentators and their publications.

I need no one to agree with me in order for me to understand and agree with the Truth.
I need no support from carnal minded people who have no clue what they are talking about and who push false doctrines which make no logical sense.

I just said, "Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse."

Does anyone see any hint of such a thing?

You would not believe anything unless it was published by your own church Anna.

People who are able to think for themselves do not rely on the publications of other people.

Just because religions publish things does not mean their publications are correct or true. You seem to rely far too much on the popularity of publications and words of other people instead of thinking for yourself.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 2:12:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 2:02:57 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:42:21 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:32:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:52:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 8:37:25 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:16:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:37:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/27/2014 7:05:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 6:03:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:39:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:16:08 PM, Skyangel wrote:

He also said, "They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning.

Do you think the crowd knew they were crucifying a man for blasphemy?
What exactly was it that they did not know?
Try thinking for yourself Anna and work it out.
Handing you the answers on a golden platter does not work. You are obviously not mature enough to comprehend anything I say. You are like those people in the story who don't know what they do. You also have no clue what you are doing or why you are doing it. You can't see the light even when it is pointed out to you because you are blinded by your own ignorance and preconceived ideas.

Ok, I guess you think they did know what they were doing - even though Jesus said they didn't.

Do you know what you are doing Anna or are you also clueless regarding your own actions and words?
If you were crucifying a real person would you be aware of what you were doing and why you were doing it?
If you were rejecting and "crucifying" the Truth daily you would not even know you were doing it simply because you would think you were rejecting a lie. Being unable to distinguish truth from lies is the only way you would not know that you were rejecting the truth.
If you do not know you are doing anything wrong, you are not guilty of the crime since you are ignorant of your own crime. You own conscience ( the Father) would justify your actions and words.
If you knew you were rejecting (crucifying) the Truth you would feel guilty for doing it IF you had any LOVE for the TRUTH at all.

This was the question:

"They know not what they do." I, of course, take that to mean that the crowd didn't not fully comprehend what they were doing. Tell us the metaphorical meaning."

Has anybody seen a reasonable answer to that?


Obviously you lack in comprehension skills Anna and do not understand the spiritual meaning.
You also have no clue what you are doing. You are mocking what I say and have a bad attitude toward me due to your own ignorance and lack of comprehension. I forgive you for it because I understand your immaturity and carnal minded confusion.

Could you name for us ONE great student of the Bible - ONE published Bible commentator - who assigns the absurd meanings to words and phrases that you do? Or all they all "ignorant" and "uncomprehending"?

I do not request your forgiveness, nor would I accept it - for I have done or said nothing wrong.

Answer the question. I'd love to find someone of your mentality who managed to get published. I'm sure it's available online. I'm not speaking of someone who totally agrees with you. I'm asking for someone who mostly agrees with you.

* Addendum: Now we all know that no name, no commentary, no publication will be forthcoming. You see, SkyAngel (the one who claims Jesus never existed) is apparently the only person on earth (other than her poor husband, supposedly) who takes these positions. Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse.

The difference between you and me Anna is that I do not need to rely on carnal minded commentators or publications to help me think for myself or to find the Truth.

The anointing which abides in me is my teacher. We are one.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Truth is the best teacher you can ever have. I hope you find that teacher one day and stop relying on your carnal minded commentators and their publications.

I need no one to agree with me in order for me to understand and agree with the Truth.
I need no support from carnal minded people who have no clue what they are talking about and who push false doctrines which make no logical sense.

I just said, "Anyhow, just thought I'd ask - even though I do not expect an answer. And by "answer", all I mean is a NAME and a PUBLICATION - not an excuse."

Does anyone see any hint of such a thing?

You would not believe anything unless it was published by your own church Anna.

Well, that's a lie. I don't even have a "church". Jesus Christ, the one that you say never existed, does. And His "church" does not publish anything.

People who are able to think for themselves do not rely on the publications of other people.

Who said anyone relies on publications, other than you? I told you what the passage means - and said that everyone agrees with me - not me with them. I cited them in order from a random web page. I have no idea what religious organization some of the commentators even belong to.

Just because religions publish things does not mean their publications are correct or true. You seem to rely far too much on the popularity of publications and words of other people instead of thinking for yourself.

Look, I've ask for the name of ONE Bible scholar .. just ONE ... who anybody thought was bright enough to warrant the publication of his works ..... that agrees with these far-out view you blurt out. Thus far, you haven't named a one. And you won't name a one.

All of the great religious thinkers in history with decided unanimity all say you are wrong! That's just wonderful, isn't it? Out of all the great minds, from whatever background, whatever belief system, agree with me. NONE agree with you on much of anything. That's what I mean by "cult of one". 'Tis mighty strange when everyone else in the universe (who ever wrote on the subject) is ALL WRONG ... but SkyAngel has surpassed them all in intellect!

LMAO
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."