Page 5 of 5
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 10:01
by Sahansdal
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:44
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:38
Kyoks wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 03:05
You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.
How do you know that to " remain awake" means meditation? Doesn't it just mean to remain awake??? Also doesn't watch and pray , it this context mean to watch and pray, this does not substantiate your meaning of meditation. The words are the words plain and simple. You specifically state these words to mean what you want!
Because Jesus knew that he would be turned over, and in Church reckoning he had to be. So why "watch"? There are many instances of mystic concepts, and mastership succession being overwritten. Most people don't pray for an hour. Most "watches" are three hours, also. "Fourth watch" in the walking on water miracle was 3 to 6 am, the best time and length to meditate.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 20:06
by Dragonsend
Sahansdal wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 10:01
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:44
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:38
How do you know that to " remain awake" means meditation? Doesn't it just mean to remain awake??? Also doesn't watch and pray , it this context mean to watch and pray, this does not substantiate your meaning of meditation. The words are the words plain and simple. You specifically state these words to mean what you want!
Because Jesus knew that he would be turned over, and in Church reckoning he had to be. So why "watch"? There are many instances of mystic concepts, and mastership succession being overwritten. Most people don't pray for an hour. Most "watches" are three hours, also. "Fourth watch" in the walking on water miracle was 3 to 6 am, the best time and length to meditate.
I would defend this but to avoid argument , I decline. I would have you know that I both meditate and pray and for at least 1 to 4 hours a day. I believe in God and I believe what the scriptures and the New Testament say. The last thing that I want in this world is to argue over God. I believe the story of Jesus and I know that by doing the things that God instructed has made my life peaceful, blessed beyond belief, joyful and full of Grace.
When Jesus was being refuted the times called for a change of the churches becoming too greedy: slavery, illness, poverty were out of control and when that was questioned it was answered by self- serving questions. So I still believe in Jesus as the Christ and I serve God. I don't want to argue when nobarguement is required. I know preachers and priests and clergy as you know masters.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:32
by Dragonsend
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24
Dragonsend wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 16:34
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings.
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is
an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters
always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
Quite frankly, I am stepping away from this discussion, but I don't really believe in any context, that the story of Judas and Jesus were misrepresented. No matter the history of the church etc., etc, etc. I believe that these stories and the way they were told and translated and anything that has been lost since then are guileless. I guess I don't believe that they are mystical writings but spiritual ones. Sorry, but I don't want to haggle over translations. God Bless you!
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:39
by Dragonsend
Dragonsend wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 21:32
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is
an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters
always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
Quite frankly, I am stepping away from this discussion, but I don't really believe in any context, that the story of Judas and Jesus were misrepresented. No matter the history of the church etc., etc, etc. I believe that these stories and the way they were told and translated and anything that has been lost since then are guileless. I guess I don't believe that they are mystical writings but spiritual ones. Sorry, but I don't want to haggle over translations and I believe that he raised his heel against me , the idiom would be understood then and now to meean just that, that he has done something against that person,
God Bless you!
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:53
by Sahansdal
Dragonsend wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 21:32
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is
an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters
always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
Quite frankly, I am stepping away from this discussion, but I don't really believe in any context, that the story of Judas and Jesus were misrepresented. No matter the history of the church etc., etc, etc. I believe that these stories and the way they were told and translated and anything that has been lost since then are guileless. I guess I don't believe that they are mystical writings but spiritual ones. Sorry, but I don't want to haggle over translations. God Bless you!
Every single one of the stories in the OT is mystical allegory. Every one of the miracles and parables in the NT is mystical allegory.
https://www.amazon.com/Mystic-Bible-Ran ... stic+bible
And every one is about meditation on Word. (I am glad you meditate.) Meditation on a living Master's Word is salvation. That Master must be living concurrently with the disciple. John 6:40 is CLEAR. There can be no salvation without seeing the Master. John 9:4-5 is likewise limiting. So is John 14:7 as to who "The Way of Jesus" was for. Only living Masters save! It will never change from that into "I believe and am therefore saved." ('Saved' is saved from rebirth, not saved from death.)
Masters have come since at least Seth. They never started nor stopped with any "Jesus." He is a myth created expressly to hide the real master of the day, James, because he was a threat to the sole-savior idea of the Pauline faction which was in a duel
to the death with Jamesians. Paul
killed James.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.v ... i.lxx.html
If this is glossed over (Acts 7 and "Stephen" is Paul killing James, if you are familiar with Dr. Eisenman), what does it say about the rest of the story? Why cover up the killing of the Lord's brother? Or make up a story about the Betrayal of Christ? I proved it could not happen as the Bible says.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 22:05
by Sahansdal
Dragonsend wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 21:32
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is
an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters
always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
Quite frankly, I am stepping away from this discussion, but I don't really believe in any context, that the story of Judas and Jesus were misrepresented. No matter the history of the church etc., etc, etc. I believe that these stories and the way they were told and translated and anything that has been lost since then are guileless. I guess I don't believe that they are mystical writings but spiritual ones. Sorry, but I don't want
to haggle over translations. God bless you!
Re:"Guileless" > Reading Dr. Bart Ehrman's
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture classic will cure that false notion right quick.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 25 Jul 2019, 11:49
by Sahansdal
Dragonsend wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 21:39
Dragonsend wrote: ↑23 Jul 2019, 21:32
Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly
supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
Quite frankly, I am stepping away from this discussion, but I don't really believe in any context, that the story of Judas and Jesus were misrepresented. No matter the history of the church etc., etc, etc. I believe that these stories and the way they were told and translated and anything that has been lost since then are guileless. I guess I don't believe that they are mystical writings but spiritual ones. Sorry, but I don't want to haggle over translations and I believe that he raised his heel against me , the idiom would be understood then and now to meean just that, that he has done something against that person,
God Bless you!
Re: Guileless >
Read Dr. Ehrman's
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 30 Jul 2019, 08:56
by FREDFDK
None..
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 21 Jun 2020, 04:01
by Aftab Yunis
This book has zero connection with the Bible. "Self sacrifice" is praised in the whole book that shows no link with the true teachings of the Bible.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 21 Jun 2020, 12:10
by Sahansdal
Man, are you confused. The whole thing Old and New is about self-sacrifice, only inverted in the New Testament as I show, to a sacrifice OF THE MASTER. How can people miss this? I know you have been brainwashed, as we all were when we came to Christianity, but it is easy to show how the verses one after another, came from inverting gnostic originals. Jeez. This is harder than I thought. Can't you for just one second leave your preconceptions behind? Read Hosea 6:6 if you can't take it from me! The Father wants mercy not sacrifice (of animals - or others, like one's Master). This is the great deception. It's a lot easier to let your Master do the sacrificing, not you! This is why there are so many Christians. Other religions are more faithful to the true teaching of sacrificing YOURSELF. Even you realize your sinful soul isn't what goes to heaven. You SACRIFICE it. "woe to that man who delivers me" (correct translation). Your Bible is mistranslated. I cover many instances in my books. Don't believe everything you read.
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
Posted: 29 Jun 2022, 09:38
by Moneybag
Sahansdal wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 17:43
Dragonsend wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 16:37
"He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings. It's so confusing I can barely write coherently about it!!!
referent
This was also my mind.