Jesus For Polygyny [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Magdalenbrother

January 5th 2005, 05:14 AM

Read Mark again. Or Matthew. Find the passage where Jesus promises huge material rewards to his poor disciples "now in this time". If you read attentively you will see that he promises a "hundredfold" in lands, brothers, sisters, children and...wives!

I say this is the absolute proof that Jesus was in favor of polygyny. At the very least, he approved of it in the Kingdom.

Think also of "now, in this time". Isn't that a falsified prophecy? Did the disciples enjoy the hundred wives and children?

And how do these cheap promises à la American presidential election year harmonize with the Johannine assertion that "my Kingdom is not of this world"?

There is also the promise to the Twelve that they will sit on "twelve thrones" to judge Israel. Fine, since Judas was among the audience, are we to believe that he too will be a judge?

Contradictions, absurdities, inconsistencies...Obviously, this is very imperfectly God-breathed, don't you think so?

Another interesting question is: how many times did you hear these verses or read them and failed to realize the implications for polygamy?

The truth is that we see in the Bible what we already believe, not the other way round.

Amazing Rando

January 5th 2005, 12:30 PM

Read Mark again. Or Matthew. Find the passage where Jesus promises huge material rewards to his poor disciples "now in this time". If you read attentively you will see that he promises a "hundredfold" in lands, brothers, sisters, children and...wives!

I say this is the absolute proof that Jesus was in favor of polygyny. At the very least, he approved of it in the Kingdom.

Except it doesn't say that. :rock:

29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields–and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.

Or:

29Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

Read mose closely next time before jumping to absurd conclusions. :no:

Raptor

January 5th 2005, 07:59 PM

:doh:

dizzle

January 5th 2005, 08:12 PM

Pray tell how we are going to get a hunded mothers as well. I thought wooden literalism was only in the Left Behind camp. Guess again.

Amazing Rando

January 5th 2005, 09:14 PM

Pray tell how we are going to get a hunded mothers as well. I thought wooden literalism was only in the Left Behind camp. Guess again.

:teeth: Well if “My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice” (Luke 8:21), then I can see how it might be possible! :wink:

kofh2u

January 6th 2005, 12:13 AM

KOFHY:
Hello magdal, glad to see you have returned. Since Robyn Banks no longer raises these seemingly perplexing misinterpretations much excitement has gone by these boards.

Magdalenbrother:
Read Mark again. Or Matthew. Find the passage where Jesus promises huge material rewards to his poor disciples...

KOFHY:
Material? Or, emotional support, mothering, comradrerie, frindship, brotherhood?

Magdalenbrother:
..."now in this time". If you read attentively you will see that he promises a "hundredfold" in lands, brothers, sisters, children and...wives!

KOFHY:
Wives?

True enough about the replacement of sense of belonging. Even then, too. Those Jews who lost through excommunication for following the Lord, lost the sense of family. It was soon replaced.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Magdalenbrother:
I say this is the absolute proof that Jesus was in favor of polygyny. At the very least, he approved of it in the Kingdom.

KOFHY:
Hahaaa...
How do you twist that around?
Jesus was anti-marriage! At least, against the institution of matrimony, not a wife. But, a little honest reflection will convince an honest person that to this day, marriage under the present pagan system of matrimony was vilified by the early Christians.

Rev. 17:16 And the ten horns, (the ten successive political entities
following Rome), which thou sawest upon the beast (of that system of sexually misdirected economics) these shall hate the whore, (the Institution of Matrimony), and shall (by their laws) make her desolate (with divorce and single parenting), and naked (in the sexlessness of
marriage and adulteries), and shall eat her flesh (in homo-sexual
deviance), and burn her with fire (of litigious divorces).

Magdalenbrother:
Think also of "now, in this time". Isn't that a falsified prophecy? Did the disciples enjoy the hundred wives and children?

KOFHY:
Lots of children, and many wives became Christians.
You will remember the astonishment, too, of ancient writers who wrote of that amazing brotherhood, the early church fathers who were predecessors to the celibrate Catholic brothers of the monastic age. They marvelled how the brotherhood in vast monasteries transcended one generation into the next, never marrying, yet throughout ages the numbers of their "family," their membership even grew.

Magdalenbrother:
And how do these cheap promises à la American presidential election...

KOFHY:
Madggy, what a cheap shot at the Lord's chosen "Cyrus" of our own age:

Isa. 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to (the second) Cyrus, (my Burning Bush), whose right hand I have holden (upon the Bible), to subdue (the Islamic) nations before him; and I will loose (in dysentery) the loins of (Saudi) kings, to open before him the two leaved gates (of scripture); and the gates (of the New and Old Testaments) shall not be shut;

Magdalenbrother:
... harmonize with the Johannine assertion that "my Kingdom is not of this world"?

KOFHY:
Huh?
The kingdom of God is within...
Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a continuum from one generation to the next living generation); and (in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) there shall be no more death, neither sorrow (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own pasts), nor crying (for we are happy in these revelations), neither shall there be any more pain (as circumvented by hypnosis today): for the former things (in Modern Homo sapiens life experience) are passed away.
And he, (the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian sapiens' brain) said, Behold, (in this way) I make all things (in human experience) new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true (rational, and scientifically feasible) and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

Magdalenbrother:
There is also the promise to the Twelve that they will sit on "twelve thrones" to judge Israel. Fine, since Judas was among the audience, are we to believe that he too will be a judge?

KOFHY:
Did you forget that Judas repented? The "devil" that entered into Judas is in you, me, all men. Judas killed himself for remorse for his crime. Self inflicted, self judged, assumeably, he realized that Jesus was the Christ. Judas holds forth the example of salvation available even on Death Row.

Magdalenbrother:
Contradictions, absurdities, inconsistencies...Obviously, this is very imperfectly God-breathed, don't you think so?

KOFHY:
Well, no.
I am not sure what other misconceptions lead you to such assumption, but I am certain my few responses here, whether satisfactory to ayour withdrawal of the erroneous charges you have made or not... I am certain you have others, true?

But, God is reflected to a degree in our own thinking. After all, we think in the reflection of God. The "imag" of God reconsidering, changing direction, re-evaluating, giving Israel one chance after another, these are similar to his image in our own mind.

Gen. 6:6 And it, (the evolutionary process), REPENTED THE LORD that he had made man, (all hominoids in general), on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (that cataclysmic changes were to come).

Magdalenbrother:
Another interesting question is: how many times did you hear these verses or read them and failed to realize the implications for polygamy?

KOFHY:
I still fail.

Magdalenbrother:
The truth is that we see in the Bible what we already believe, not the other way round.

KOFHY:
That is true. You see non-sense and I see a consistent theme of growing awareness in a living creature, man. This amazing Consciousness, like the Artifical Intelligence we ourselves strive to place in our computers, is evermore awakening. The whole phylogentic trek from the first earlt stages of life are manifesting in man's Unconscious Mind.

Soon, beyond the present awareness in this last century of our Subconscious Mind, the Ancient of Ancients, the phylogenetical reproduced Unconscious Mind will wake up, Total Consciousness is at the door!

"The Collective Unconscious is a storehouse of all the experiences of humankind transmitted to each individual. As the repository for all
past experiences, it includes even our pre-human animal ancestry.
(Assumablely through the genetic processes.) It becomes the primary base of a person's psyche, directing and influencing behavior. It is the deepest and most inaccessible level of the psyche. Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all of his past experiences, so does humankind, collectively." Carl Jung

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):
and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of
rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).

Magdalenbrother

January 6th 2005, 12:50 AM

How can you get a hundredfold children without several wives? Are you suggesting illegal marital unions in the Kingdom or worse, incestuous relationships with the hundredfold sisters and mothers?

I aknowledge that I MYSELF, who give lessons on lucidity to others, read the word "wives" into the text, but you see it must be there because how can you abandon your children without also abandoning a wife? Didn't Peter and all the other disciples have wives? How come this is not mentioned? Or are we to think that they were all bachelors, widowers, or worse still (horresco referens), virgin or repentant gays (yes, such people exist!)?

Obviously, something is wrong. Besides, what's the fun to live in a Kingdom where one has no wives but only sisters and mothers?

Either Jesus was quite, quite anti-sex (I believe he was, by the way) and illogical and oblivious of the marital status of his disciples, or the passage has been rearranged so as to avoid the hilarious problem I raised in the headpost.

Amazing Rando

January 6th 2005, 12:53 AM

Magdalenbrother

January 6th 2005, 01:02 AM

I would no more consider that to be a refutation then I would consider a fart to be a hurricane.

IOWm explain, don't just throw out words. You are often woodenly literal yourself when it suits you (for example when the divinity of Jesus is at stake).

I edited my post, by the way.

I'm really flattered that so many Admins and even the Big Boss post on my threads. They must have somethin' :sigh: .

kofh2u

January 6th 2005, 02:00 AM

I echo Dee Dee's comment about "wooden literalism." :lolo:

I wish mag had responded to my comments.
But, I would add to your response two things for his information.

1) The sense of a Need for Belonging, (recognized as such a powerful need by Abraham Maslow, the Father of American Humanism), was fulfilled in the earliest church as it is today, with 100's of children just in the Sunday School.

The Religious education, that is growing stronger today, and once was a universal requirement, might add numbers to Mag's demand on this account.

Of course, St Paul explained that Christian-acting wives, giving up the subcultural paganisms of sexual license and manipulations, could accompany the convert husband to Christ, too.

No.
Christ wasn't against sex.

He was merely trying to "save" the young unmarried men from the fate of their older brothers, perhaps even an apostle or two, all of whom concurred that without the exit of divorce, marriage was a trap.

Isa. 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their
tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,

Isa. 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

Isa. 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the
headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

Isa. 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels,

Isa. 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the
wimples, and the crisping pins,

Isa. 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
veils.

He observed how sexual manipulation in both economic and pre-marital negotiations turned men into "a piece of bread, ($)," as it is stated in Proverbs.

2) Loving your enemy does mean not to kill them, of course. It Jesus meant pro-actively:

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), andas the doves (of peace) to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and
the ships of Tarshish first (from Western Europe), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD, (Christ) thy God, (the Word of scripture), and to the Holy One of Israel, (Jesus), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour (restoring my chosen to Israel) have I had mercy on thee.

Isa. 60:11 Therefore thy gates, (O'Promised Land), shall be open
continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring
(as tourists) unto thee the forces of the (rich Christian) Gentiles, and
that their kings may be brought (supporting your sovereignty).

Magdalenbrother

January 6th 2005, 02:37 AM

All wives are whores, right? I might be an antisemite, but you are a misogynist Kof :smile: .

The children are other people's children, what a clever argument! And how were they procreated? By angels? By the Holy spirit (but in male bellies this time)?

I think that Jesus was anti-marriage and anti-procreation. His own brother had taken life-long virginity vows. The great tribulation was coming, begetting children was not desirable.

Thank you for the stars, admin. That will attract people's attention, no doubt about that. Besides, nobody knows what they really mean, so many visitors will probably think you were praising me.

Magdalenbrother

January 6th 2005, 05:40 AM

Kof: Material? Or, emotional support, mothering, comradrerie, frindship, brotherhood?Sorry, houses et fields are mentioned, which means that we are not in some ethereal world, but here on earth.

Wives?They are now called sisters. The Song of Songs uses this terminology.

True enough about the replacement of sense of belonging. Even then, too. Those Jews who lost through excommunication for following the Lord, lost the sense of family. It was soon replaced.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

In Jesus' lifetime, no Jews were expelled from the synagogue for believing in Jesus. This happened much later. John's assertion is an obvious katachronism.

KOFHY:
Hahaaa...
How do you twist that around?
How do you explain the existence of children?

Jesus was anti-marriage! At least, against the institution of matrimony, not a wife. But, a little honest reflection will convince an honest person that to this day, marriage under the present pagan system of matrimony was vilified by the early Christians.Quite true of the Jesus pictured by Paul, Luke and John. Jesus never cured a sterile woman in his career. But sterility must have been common. On the other hand he is said to have frequently associated with whores, women who probably didn't have children.

KOFHY:
Lots of children, and many wives became Christians.
You will remember the astonishment, too, of ancient writers who wrote of that amazing brotherhood, the early church fathers who were predecessors to the celibrate Catholic brothers of the monastic age. They marvelled how the brotherhood in vast monasteries transcended one generation into the next, never marrying, yet throughout ages the numbers of their "family," their membership even grew.
Are you suggesting that the promised children are not the children of the disciples? Children born before the Parousia and who somehow made it into the Kingdom? Since they must grow up, the Kingdom must become childless after a little time, don't you think so?

I think the wives must have been mentioned in the original texts but they were erased when the way the Christians envisaged the Kingdom completely changed under the influence of sex-denying philosophies.

I really don't know. The Gospel portrait of Jesus is hopelessly contradictory and confusing.

KOFHY:
Madggy, what a cheap shot at the Lord's chosen "Cyrus" of our own age:

I find Jesus' promises almost as disgusting and vulgar as his threats towards those who might be tempted to betray him and his enticements to suffer martyrdom. Why do people need rewards? Didn't he teach that one hand should ignore what the other does? In Zen Buddhism you don't expect rewards. Expecting rewards is part of the old mind. Promises like these generate greed.

All in all, it seems to me that Jesus was a kind of Ayatollah Khomeini.

KOFHY:
Did you forget that Judas repented? The "devil" that entered into Judas is in you, me, all men. Judas killed himself for remorse for his crime. Self inflicted, self judged, assumeably, he realized that Jesus was the Christ. Judas holds forth the example of salvation available even on Death Row.

I like your interpretation, but it is not orthodox. Besides, Jesus said that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. Which means two things:

-that his post-mortem fate must have been quite unenviable
-that Jesus did not want to die or did not come to die since according to the Gospels Judas' role was essential in the plot to kill him.

dizzle

January 6th 2005, 08:44 AM

even the Big Boss post on my threads. They must have somethin' :sigh: .

:oldddw: :ddw:

kofh2u

January 6th 2005, 03:43 PM

Magdal:
All wives are whores, right?

KOFHY:
No way.
I am sure that we are against systems, like the adolescent fires of sexual license allowed in the secretative taboo world of Molech.

Magdal:
I might be an antisemite,...

KOFHY:
Ha! Confession is good for the Psycke'.

Magdal:
but you are a misogynist Kof :smile:

Huh?
You fault me for saying the son of man is subject to the satanic hormonal weaknesses so easily exploited as Isaiah tells us?.

Magdal:
The children are other people's children, what a clever argument! And how were they procreated?

KOFHY:
Born in the sin of the system of sociological things we tolerate and support:

Magdal:
I think that Jesus was anti-marriage and anti-procreation. His own brother had taken life-long virginity vows. The great tribulation was coming, begetting children was not desirable.

KOFHY:
No, the Great Tribulation was a long way off. You only refer to the diaspora.

Magdal:
I think that Jesus was anti-marriage and anti-procreation.

KOFHY:
Not the way scripture tells it:

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels (from among the seven archetypal modes of my thinking) which had the seven vials (of insights), and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore, (the Institution of Matrimony) that sitteth upon many waters (of western cultural social behaviors):

Rev. 17:2 (An institution) with whom the kings of the earth have
committed fornication (in the name of economic complicity), and the inhabitants of the earth have
been made drunk with the wine of her (exploitive) fornication.

Sparko

January 6th 2005, 03:58 PM

wow, Mag bro. Other than Johnny Skeptic, I have never seen someone make such a huge bonehead error and then refuse to acknowledge the fact you did so, but instead try to rationalize your error away so strenuously.

Makes for good entertainment. :thumb:

:popcorn:

TuckEverlasting

January 6th 2005, 04:02 PM

I would no more consider that to be a refutation then I would consider a fart to be a hurricane.

:lmbo: :rofl:

kofh2u

January 6th 2005, 09:09 PM

Sorry, houses et fields are mentioned, which means that we are not in some ethereal world, but here on earth.

They are now called sisters. The Song of Songs uses this terminology.

In Jesus' lifetime, no Jews were expelled from the synagogue for believing in Jesus. This happened much later. John's assertion is an obvious katachronism.

How do you explain the existence of children?

Quite true of the Jesus pictured by Paul, Luke and John. Jesus never cured a sterile woman in his career. But sterility must have been common. On the other hand he is said to have frequently associated with whores, women who probably didn't have children.

Are you suggesting that the promised children are not the children of the disciples? Children born before the Parousia and who somehow made it into the Kingdom? Since they must grow up, the Kingdom must become childless after a little time, don't you think so?

I think the wives must have been mentioned in the original texts but they were erased when the way the Christians envisaged the Kingdom completely changed under the influence of sex-denying philosophies.

I really don't know. The Gospel portrait of Jesus is hopelessly contradictory and confusing.

I find Jesus' promises almost as disgusting and vulgar as his threats towards those who might be tempted to betray him and his enticements to suffer martyrdom. Why do people need rewards? Didn't he teach that one hand should ignore what the other does? In Zen Buddhism you don't expect rewards. Expecting rewards is part of the old mind. Promises like these generate greed.

All in all, it seems to me that Jesus was a kind of Ayatollah Khomeini.

I like your interpretation, but it is not orthodox. Besides, Jesus said that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. Which means two things:

-that his post-mortem fate must have been quite unenviable
-that Jesus did not want to die or did not come to die since according to the Gospels Judas' role was essential in the plot to kill him.

1) Magdal, Tho' I am glad to see u back, you seem overly annoyed and much less reliant upon that deep resouvior of knowledge, more prone to an emotional flavor in your comments.

I sincerely hope you have not encountered frustrations in your personal life which have u so affect u.

2) Your last comment, about orthodox opinion, perhaps you mean traditionally, that people never connect the forgiveness of Jesus here, but, love thy enemy is a major tenet. Jesus could find it much easier to forgive a ratting out to you. I am orthodox in this. His forgiveness must extend to us, because hd died for our sins... which continue.

3) Your two choices, in regard to the motivation behind the comment Jesus made, that it would have been better that Judas hadn't been born:

Think about it.
For instance, imagine that you are wrong about Christ.
Put yourself in the same position as Judas, say. From the perspective of Judas, at the time, he just merely felt anti-christ. He doubted the authenticity of his messiahship.
Your own attitude about Jesus, with us here at Tweb, and wherever else you express yourself, it is hardly noticed among us. The people who are living there lives during this short moment in history with you, we will all be gone soon, as will you. Gone and forgotten.

We will all be forgotten. But, the imfamy of Judas, though, will never be forgotten. His name and his crime has taken on a life of its own. It would have been better for him, no doubt, if he had never "enjoyed" the all too little span of 35 years in this eternity which just will never forget him and his crime.

Unlike him, your own errors will die wth you, Judas iswill always be remembered immmemorially. The Jews must think about Judas, though. They presented him as a human sacrifice to save themselves from a Roman retribution for an uprising they expected Jesus to instigate. They were also his Judas, his own people.

Zech. 12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of (the triangular landscape of) Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon, (because of the armageddon of the coming scriptural understandings).

Zech. 12:12 And the land (of Israel) shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David, (the Hebrew-Christian community), apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan, (those who handed Jesus up), apart, and their wives apart;

Zech. 12:13 The family of the house of Levi, (the Cohanim), apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei, (the Rabbi of today), apart,
and their wives apart;

Zech. 12:14 All the families (of the twelve tribes of Israel) that
remain (scattered throughout the world), every family apart, and their wives apart.

Proteus

January 30th 2005, 12:27 PM

Proteus

January 30th 2005, 12:30 PM

:haha:

wow, Mag bro. Other than Johnny Skeptic, I have never seen someone make such a huge bonehead error and then refuse to acknowledge the fact you did so, but instead try to rationalize your error away so strenuously.

Makes for good entertainment. :thumb:

:popcorn:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Vivian

January 30th 2005, 01:59 PM

I really don't know. The Gospel portrait of Jesus is hopelessly contradictory and confusing.[/b]

All in all, it seems to me that Jesus was a kind of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Hello Magdalenbro,

Bravo for pointing out that the words or Jesus are confusing and even contradictory to modern Christian thought.

Church goers have been lulled to sleep sincerely believing that it is beyond human abiltity to understand fully what Jesus was teaching hence they get stuck in endless debates. It is not, though. Jesus himself taught that those with eyes to see and ears to hear will understand.

This is why he taught at different levels. To some he taught parables, to others he taught deeper truths - up on the mountain and in the house.

You Magdalenbro, because of your sincere questioning, feel ready to be taken beyond the milk.

A good place to begin is with common threads of Truth that can be found through out many original teachings of the Masters.

One that comes to mind is the self and its desires and how that leads to suffering, which is a foundational teaching in Christianity, Buddhism and Hindusm.

If we have a more complete understanding of self and this world as a playground for fulfilling the desires of self, we can come to a greater understanding of the words of Jesus in the scriptures you are questioning.

Interested?

vivian

kofh2u

January 30th 2005, 03:29 PM

Hello Magdalenbro,

Bravo for pointing out that the words or Jesus are confusing and even contradictory to modern Christian thought.

Church goers have been lulled to sleep sincerely believing that it is beyond human abiltity to understand fully what Jesus was teaching hence they get stuck in endless debates. It is not, though. Jesus himself taught that those with eyes to see and ears to hear will understand.

This is why he taught at different levels. To some he taught parables, to others he taught deeper truths - up on the mountain and in the house.

You Magdalenbro, because of your sincere questioning, feel ready to be taken beyond the milk.

A good place to begin is with common threads of Truth that can be found through out many original teachings of the Masters.

One that comes to mind is the self and its desires and how that leads to suffering, which is a foundational teaching in Christianity, Buddhism and Hindusm.

If we have a more complete understanding of self and this world as a playground for fulfilling the desires of self, we can come to a greater understanding of the words of Jesus in the scriptures you are questioning.

Interested?

vivian

Yes, viv, I agree that Madgie is very interesting and reflective. He has tremendous intellectual power and a broad academic understanding, coupled to a tremendous expressive power in language.

We concur further in that he has focused upon cast his pearls before the swine of ancient and misconceived orthodox interpretations. It is hardly strange that he grasps at straws of non-senseabout triffles of seeming inconsistencies. He responds to archaic doctrines and ritual dogmas that must annoy him as thoroughly as the political use of organized religion angers him. And, in all this, he misses the point the Christ is about human sanity, about mental health, about introspection, self understanding, and the matters germane to all human behavior. He wrestles with the knowledge of good vs evil, is concerned with matters of right and wrong, while he misses the message that Hebrew Scripture is concerned with the SELF, and all the other components of the human "soul," or psyke.'

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):
and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of
rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).

Richbee

January 30th 2005, 04:03 PM

kofh2u

January 30th 2005, 05:46 PM

I'm yet to discover one "sincere" skeptic.

Truth seekers should consider that.......

The first case of polygamy recorded in the Scriptures had to do with a descendant of the infamous Cain, Lamech, who “took unto him two wives” (Gen. 4:19). The manner in which the practice is introduced into the Bible, (in obvious contrast to 2:24) reveals that it did this did not represent the ideal "family".

Later in Old Testament history, polygamy was practiced to some extent; both David and Solomon, for example, were polygamists. Again, this is not viewed as ideal, and the troubles these two endure through life bear witness.

Yet, this IS tolerated under the Mosaic regime. And, YET - *NOT* the divine ideal, and it never brought genuine happiness to those who indulged. In most cases, polygamy accelerated even greater levels of unacceptable conduct. (See 1 Kings 11:1-3)

In direct contrast, Jesus taught that the divine pattern is that “the two [not three, four, etc.] shall become one flesh” (Mt. 19:5). Polygamy mars the “one flesh” ideal.

The monogamous family is God’s authorized plan for marriage until the end of time. The New Testament takes for granted the relationship of one man for one woman in the marriage arrangement (See 1 Cor. 7:2; 9:5; Eph. 5:23ff).

"Sincere."
Well, Mag is not searching for help from us.
He sincerely believes that scripture makes no sense and is contradictory enough that he can bring this to our attention. Mag is not a student of scripture, but rather a teacher. He is a well read and reflective scoffer.

I do sense that he might have an honest streak in him, and that truth can be very seductive for him.

As regards marriage, I believe that scripture supports the position that the institution is totally pagan and far afield from the intended relationship between man and wife.

The New Testament supports the view that Christ opposed matrimony and certainly the celebracy of the RC priesthood of this day is a corrupted vistageof a former bachelorhood., IMO.

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels (from among the seven archetypal modes of my thinking) which had the seven vials (of insights), and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore, (the Institution of Matrimony) that sitteth upon many waters (of western cultural social behaviors):

wels member

January 30th 2005, 06:01 PM

kofh2u

January 30th 2005, 07:25 PM

having more than one wife was never in God's plan.

we see this from the garden of eden and from What Jesus said about marriage "The two shall become one.

Why did God allow the sin of polygymy in the old testament?
of many of the patriachs of the bible ?
we could ask this same question of our selves .
Why does God allow us to sin in the many ways we also sin? And not destroy us for our sin's of the past and present and future?

God is merciful
he wants every one to turn to his word that became flesh Lived a perfect life for us and died for our sin's.

You hit the issue head on!

Anyone who thinks marriage, as an institution in our society, represents a sacrimental place in God's plan must be blind to 60% divorce, which alone is de facto polygomy.

Rev. 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest, (the Institution of Matrimony), is that great city (of pagan subcultural prostitution) which reigneth over (even political entities), the kings of the earth.

Vivian

January 31st 2005, 01:04 PM

Hi kofh2u and all.

Although a new member here, i am sensing that magdalenbro is sincerely seeking. It is only that he has not yet tasted of Truth, so for now all religious traditions are just exercises in contraditions and his soul wants to bring them down.

This is not a bad place to be - for before the new can be built, the old must be destroyed. You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin.

So even though magdalenbro has yet to speak up, may I offer a bit of meat for us all to chew on?

Most here probably recall that Genesis offers two stories of creation. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition they are both tellings of the same tale regarding the creation of the world we see with our mundane senses and the creation of what we define as ourselves. However there are some problems with this.

One is the well known problem of the order of creation. But there are several other deeper issues. One is that at the end of the first story, all the plants of this creation are considered good for food. All is good that was created.

In the second creation though, all is not good. There is a tree placed in the middle of the Garden that is not good for food.

Question: Is it possible that we are being told of two separate creations? Perhaps the first a spiritual creation and the second a material one? And in the first man is made as both male and female, two parts of the whole? And it is only in the second story that there was a creation of separate male and female physical bodies?

vivian

kofh2u

January 31st 2005, 05:46 PM

Vivia:
Hi kofh2u and all.
KOFHY:
Hi u all...

Vivia:
i am sensing that magdalenbro is sincerely seeking. It is only that he has not yet tasted of Truth, so for now all religious traditions are just exercises in contraditions and his soul wants to bring them down.

KOFHY:
U may be right.

I suspect he totally has been around the block. He knows the "party line" of Christians and Jews pretty well. He doesn't buy their "story (s)," and he sets up many a case against them.

But, u are also correct that he may well be open to a really rational and secularly understandable interpretation that is without contradictions, either historically or theologically.

Vivia:
This is not a bad place to be - for before the new can be built, the old must be destroyed. You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin.

KOFHY:
My sentiments exactly.
He is way better off now, before the prostylizing hoards, from the ends of the earth, find him at a weak moment, and, once indoctrinated, make him seven times worse off.

Vivia:
... may I offer a bit of meat for us all to chew on?

Most here probably recall that Genesis offers two stories of creation. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition they are both tellings of the same tale regarding the creation of the world ...

KOFHY:
I buy this.
Genesis 1 is the creation process, before. Gen 2, the "after."

Vivia:
...we see (Gen 2) with our mundane senses and the creation of what we define as ourselves.

KOFHY::
Yes!
Gen 2 is about man's Conscious Mind evolving, coming to "sense" and define for himself the material Creation external to his thinking. Man needs and does "build" a schmata of Reality.

Vivia:
However there are some problems with this.

KOFHY:
Huh?

Vivia:
One is the well known problem of the order of creation.

KOFHY:
That problem disappears if Gen 2 is telling us that man is reflecting, he is "imaging" the created works of God, so the order would seem recursive.

Vivia:
But there are several other deeper issues.

KOFHY:
How so?

Vivia:
One is that at the end of the first story, all the plants of this creation are considered good for food. All is good that was created.

KOFHY:
Yeah....

Vivia:
In the second creation though, all is not good.

KOFHY:
The "second" creation is internal to man's mind, his conscious awareness.
Inside this immanent expression of God, the one that is "in His image," the mental Godhead that was created in Gen 1:26-7.

The happy little "garden" here, inside of Adam, is/was totally absent of Free Will.

The evolved/evolving mind,it's image of the created, external Reality, it functions without conscious decision making. It is instinctual and reactive to all that God has made. Adam is like other animals, basically instinctually action and reaction, stimulus- response.

But, in this garden, the fenced area (eden), the boundary of permissible behaviors has always denied any totally Conscious life forms. Eden means "bound place," the behavior of all the animals, the ecology of the plants, every process of life is/was in harmonious agreement, instinctually, naturally.

The tree of the genetic traits, including those giving temporary and short lived opportunity for choice, like fight or flee, was present. But not to "eat it up," 24/7.

The tree of knowledge of good choices compared to bad choices had its place in the boundary (eden) of mental capacities (the garden of thinking). But, Adam "ate" it up 24/7, becoming like God in deciding every turn of events. He thus left that instinctual paradise.

Vivia:
There is a tree placed in the middle of the Garden that is not good for food.

KOFHY:
True.
It was intended as an "escape valve." It was the temporary consciousness needed for reactions to fear. The fear of God was the beginning of all knowledge, 24/7.
Adam began to "feed" upon this seductive capacity.

Vivia:
Question: Is it possible that we are being told of two separate creations?

KOFHY:
Yes.
One Creation in Genesis is the Theistic expression of God, that is, His pre-Big Bang entity we call The Father.

Then, a second is described as it relates to the Image of God, inside the mind of Adam.
God, in His image is immanent, mental, internal, non-material thoughts.
This "second" creation is the reflection of the Immanent God, God's image, expressed in Adam's mind.

Vivia:
Perhaps the first a spiritual creation and the second a material one?

KOFHY:
Huh?
No.
I see the first creation, Gen 1, as referring to the material, concrete formation of the Universe (s).

"Spiritually," the mental, the non-matter, electromagnetic mental facility of the Creation being "imaged" in man's mind is Gen 2.

Vivia:
And in the first man is made as both male and female, two parts of the whole?

KOFHY:
Well, this leads into Gen 3. But yes, man's mind has a complementary "rib" to its sevenfold psyche.
Though man has a seven fold spirit, the seven Freudian archetypal thinking apparati, his Intuition is a little less developed than found in the mind of his wife.

Vivia:
And it is only in the second story that there was a creation of separate male and female physical bodies?

KOFHY:
True.

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Vivian

February 2nd 2005, 05:14 AM

Magdalenbrother

February 3rd 2005, 02:23 AM

Yes, viv, I agree that Madgie is very interesting and reflective. He has tremendous intellectual power and a broad academic understanding, coupled to a tremendous expressive power in language.

We concur further in that he has focused upon cast his pearls before the swine of ancient and misconceived orthodox interpretations. It is hardly strange that he grasps at straws of non-senseabout triffles of seeming inconsistencies. He responds to archaic doctrines and ritual dogmas that must annoy him as thoroughly as the political use of organized religion angers him. And, in all this, he misses the point the Christ is about human sanity, about mental health, about introspection, self understanding, and the matters germane to all human behavior. He wrestles with the knowledge of good vs evil, is concerned with matters of right and wrong, while he misses the message that Hebrew Scripture is concerned with the SELF, and all the other components of the human "soul," or psyke.'

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):
and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of
rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).
I don't confine my prose to destructive stuff. And even the straws I seize upon sometimes conceal huge dark forests of further questions, investigation and finally unsuspected truth. There are no details in Scripture since everything is interconnected.

I also pour my energy into writing constructive stuff, musings which reflect what I call the "mythological understanding" of Xristianity, but people either don't read them (they don't trigger their aggressive instincts, I suppose) or they are angered because I dare play with their holy stuff in an unorthodox way. Or they can't forgive me for my past demolishing efforts: one must be a consistent mason.

What I find amazing is that even some of the Unorthodox are incapable of recognizing very simple truths such as the fact that the Bible has been subject to manipulations to serve particular agendas. For most people, reading and interpreting the Book seems to come down to an all or nothing question: either you revere the whole thing or you throw it away en bloc. My approach is to discern what is eternally true from the accretions and interpolations of lying scribes (Jer 8:8).

I'm aided in this by the fact that for me the Bible is quite, quite unimportant. But since it is so much part of our Western culture, I find that unless I talk about the Book either in positive or disparaging terms, nobody will listen. But if you were to ask me what book really matters for me, I would answer that Krishnamurti's books are much more a source of inspiration to me than the Jewish scriptures. And of course, the best sacred book is one's own life. To learn to read it, that should be our priority.

I repeat (for those who won't listen unless one uses scriptural quotes): Panta dokimazdete, put everything to the test. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

InChristAlways

February 3rd 2005, 10:14 AM

There is also the promise to the Twelve that they will sit on "twelve thrones" to judge Israel. Fine, since Judas was among the audience, are we to believe that he too will be a judge?Judgeing by revelation, it doesn't show 12 "thrones", symbolic maybe?. Since Judas represented Judah, who would have taken Judah's place? And like a poster said, he was "remorsefull", unlike the ones who actually had Him crucified. reve 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. I think that Jesus was anti-marriage and anti-procreation. His own brother had taken life-long virginity vows. The great tribulation was coming, begetting children was not desirable. That could explain a few things, as today what would be the purpose of getting married and think of her "not as our wife":wink: ?: 1 corin 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.

Hi Mag. I also enjoy your profoundness for the Truth in scripture. Indeed, trying to find what the "lying pen of scribes" wrote is a daunting task for us that seek that truth as in this article below. Keep the post coming brother. God bless.
http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html

Perhaps the best example of a false prophecy edited into the book of a prophet, a false prophecy that was known to be false when the manuscript was edited, is found in the book of Ezekiel.
I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will be desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will dry up the Nile, and will sell the land into the hand of evil men; I will bring desolation upon the land and everything in it, by the hand of foreigners;

All of the above is just a long false prophecy, in that none of these things happened. The Babylonians did not destroy Egypt, the Nile never dried up, there was never a time when Egypt was desolate for forty years, no exile and return of the Egyptians, and no time when there was not a prince over Egypt, among the other things mentioned. By editing these false prophecies into the manuscript the scribes effectively discredited the prophet Ezekiel.

kofh2u

February 3rd 2005, 11:49 AM

Hi kofhy,

Your insights touch on some verities that i have come to know and was wondering if you had any speculation as to why man needed a physical reflection of spiritual reality.

Also are you saying that there are separate male and female souls?

vivian

vivian:
...speculation as to why man needed a physical reflection of spiritual reality?

KOFHY:
Man is born with a strange instinctual sense that survival is supreme. The strangest thing about his particular understanding of this universal drive is that he depends upon his mind for success. Conscious Mind is operating 24/7. This one tool has replaced all those other amazing ways animal and plants survive.

The contradiction that man must admit is that while his mind has mastered the environment of the previous 40,000 years, his thinking has created an enemy never present before, himself.

Modern Homo sapiens is born mad. Man sees a way to survive that appears right to him. Self interest, self concern, self centeredness, selfishness is satisfactory in the short run. But, in the big picture, the evil that men do lives after them, and it is evil because it strikes down men in future generations. Man has created the seeds of environmental changes never intended by Nature. Survival has become dependent upon man surviving the environmental presence of man. Insanity, in its simpliest terms, neurotism, the tendency to hurt oneself.

So, our salvation depends upon seieng this truth, dying in our innate ways, and being re-born with new perspectives and attitudes.

Christ is about human sanity, about mental health, about introspection, self understanding, and the matters germane to all human behavior.

vivian:
Also are you saying that there are separate male and female souls?

KOFHY:
I believe that much evidence supports this.
In particular, if we focus upon the connotation of the English word soul, meaning of psyke', in the Greek. If mind is considered spirit, in that it is non-material and non-physical, then much of our secular knowledge supports differences between the "soul" of men and the "psyke'" of woman.

The Roman's used the word Anima to denote the mind of woman. Intuition, nurtured by much motherly worry, no doubt, would explain these difference in souls to the evolutionist.

In the Jewish ritualized prayer that "thanks God I wasn't born a woman," perhaps we see ancient acquiescence.
In scripture, I see much support for male and female souls:

Gen. 2:21 And God, ("Father Nature"), caused a sleep, (a progressive, evolving, subconsciousness) to overcome him, and he slept (for many millennia): and God, (the Almighty Universal Force), took one of man's "ribs," (one of the faculties of his psyche) and closed up the flesh (of that facility) instead thereof;