-->
@WyIted
There is a lot to breakdown there.
I did say to you above it would take pages to explain this story.
I have no time now, it is my day out and wouldn't miss it for rain, heat, sleet or snow.
Have a nice day yourself, Wylted.
You ask me 5 questions about your past, present or future. I use tarot to answer them.
Posts
Total:
69
-->
@Stephen
I am curious. If you can recommend me a book or some resource to figure this out on my own. I still have a credit on audible if I need it.
I will say i have been already looking at some stuff on my own but any help would be appreciated
have a good weekend
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
Since I have warned the (ex) site president and he decided to proceed to mock me and derail the thread, I ask you is there not a rule being violated here?
He is completely derailing the thread continuously.
-->
@WyIted
So if we are to take this story as an actual literal event, then Jesus, son of god, miracle worker and general know-it - all, who is also believed to be god, got it totally wrong didn't he, Wylted?I am just looking for the intent of the story. Is it intended to be literal or not and if it is supposed to be figurative wouldn't it have more colorful tone?
One could I suppose, assume it is figurative in the use of language and or metaphor. But to those of the time it was probably quite normal and understood the language of the day. As with the example I highlighted concerning the language used by the wayward prodigal son's father. The son wasn't "dead" and rotting, was he?
If they say he got it wrong either they are bad writers or they are honest writers and just aren't realizing this disqualifies Jesus as being omniscient.
Well if you believe the story of Lazarus then Jesus got just about everything wrong, didn't he? First we are told that he was only "sick" and we are told by Jesus that Lazarus wouldn't "die" yet in the next breath Jesus informs those with him that Lazarus is "dead".
Unless of course, it is as I have explained: that is was a ritualistic "raising" from the dead. And the disciples wished to "die" with him so they might be "raised" too.I am just asking you why it doesn't just come out and say it is a ritualistic raising from the dead.
[A]
You have to understand the time and the actual situation Jesus and his followers were in. They were all eventually wanted by the Roman authorities. This is why Jesus (although he denies it) did many thing in secret. How often can we read of Jesus telling someone not to mention what he had said or done. And do not all sects, secret societies and occults use language that is only understood by those "with ears"?
I don't doubt we can pull some sort of allegory from the story.
We can, it was a ritualist raising to a higher degree in the Jesus movement. i.e. having another meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text. Freemasons to this day use identical language and rituals that start with the induction of the Apprentice through Honorary 33rd degree and beyond. Armies uses code, crooks use words known only to their own circle. Here in England the underworld too had their own rhyming slang which is now commonly known throughout the country for "those with ears" and those that take the time to explore it.
Police use a phonetic language of communication i.e. Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot etc etc.
Just remember this from the mouth of Jesus himself:
"Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them". Matthew 13:10-12.
And there is the biblical story of the "dead" daughter;
When we take closer look at the “dead daughter” story we can see that either Jesus lied or he didn’t perform a miracle or both;
“behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise. He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose”. Mathew 9: 18-25.KJV
So we see, if the “certain” ruler’s daughter is dead has her father believes she is ( he would know wouldn't he?), then Jesus lied exactly as he did to those disciples who were with him in the case of Lazarus where he first told them Lazarus was not dead but asleep. And if she (the daughter) was not dead, then there was no miracle performed but a ritual “raising”.
it is merely Jesus trying to show off his magical powers to prove he is God.
Well, as I have already pointed out to you, if Jesus had "magical powers" then he failed miserably in predicting that Lazarus wouldn't "die". Indeed, his entire mission failed, didn't it?
The biggest takeaway I would like you to help me here with is, maybe answering why an allegory wouldn't be more clearly an allegory or stated to be such?
See [A] above.
Maybe this bible verse will help you understand what I have been telling you.
Matthew 8:21-22.KJV “And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”. <<<<< that should spell it out for you.
Since I have warned the (ex) site president and he decided to proceed to mock me and derail the thread, I ask you is there not a rule being violated here?He is completely derailing the thread continuously
Just noticed this. Another example of cry bullying.
-->
@Stephen
Well if you believe the story of Lazarus then Jesus got just about everything wrong, didn't he? First we are told that he was only "sick" and we are told by Jesus that Lazarus wouldn't "die" yet in the next breath Jesus informs those with him that Lazarus is "dead".
I think you are assuming sophisticated people wrote the Bible. It sounds like somebody who just couldn't keep their story straight. We aren't reading the Illiad here.
You have to understand the time and the actual situation Jesus and his followers were in. They were all eventually wanted by the Roman authorities. This is why Jesus (although he denies it) did many thing in secret. How often can we read of Jesus telling someone not to mention what he had said or done. And do not all sects, secret societies and occults use language that is only understood by those "with ears"?.
This is why it is so hard for me to believe. I have been in occult secret societies and dabbled in occultism and if we read something like Aleister Crowley or even occultists like John Dee, there stuff comes off as being occultist.
I think I am starting to understand your theory a bit more though. It seems you are not a Jesus mythicist like I suspected and I was trying to figure out your theory through that lense.
Jesus did routinely say keep this or that secret but I was assuming it was like an act of modesty. Like if you tell people I healed you than I won't get to sleep in because those Fuckers will be here when the rooster crows and I will need to start healing everyone.
Well, as I have already pointed out to you, if Jesus had "magical powers" then he failed miserably in predicting that Lazarus wouldn't "die". Indeed, his entire mission failed, didn't it?
People swear up and down that the guy from Heavan's Gate had magical powers also. They swear it about David Blaine as well. These people are just pretending to have magic powers. I am assuming the words are off here because of just having a bad writer.
I assume this because if somebody sat across from me telling me this I would dismiss it as being just bad story telling and not think much of it.
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”. <<<<< that should spell it out for you.
Isn't this no different than me telling somebody they are dead to me and then mentioning my dad died. One is common parlance the other is a statement of fact. I wouldn't assume if somebody used one phrase and then talked of death they would be speaking in code. .
You bring up a good points but I a challenging you to dig deeper. I want to fully understand your theory. It's the first I have heard of it and I am very curious.
-->
@WyIted
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”. <<<<< that should spell it out for you.Isn't this no different than me telling somebody they are dead to me and then mentioning my dad died.
It, I believe, proves the point I have made. "Let the dead bury the dead". This disciple who asked for leave was clearly among and inside the Jesus movement so wasn't "dead". And as I have repeated a few times now that those outside the Jesus movement were considered "dead". Hence, "let the dead bury the dead". Hence the father was physically dead among those considered and called "the dead" by the Jesus movement
If I am wrong , and we have to take this all literal, then simply ask yourself, how can someone that is physically dead and rotting bury anyone?
-->
@Stephen
If I am wrong , and we have to take this all literal, then simply ask yourself, how can someone that is physically dead and rotting bury anyone
Well you would take that part is metaphorical but the guy getting buried as literally dead.
Have you ever heard of the popular phrases
1. I am dead inside
2. You are dead to me.
It's common to say things like this. If you say let the dead bury the dead than you would me let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead.
It's kind of a cold hearted thing to say but it doesn't sound like something meant to be taken too seriously.
So if somebody said you are dead to me and then started telling me their dad died or something, I wouldn't assume they meant their dead is spiritually dead.
We might just have to end this here. I was hoping to drill into why you thought the messages had this hidden meaning but I have a feeling we will just go in circles where you point out that common turns of phrases should be taken literal and the parts in a conversation that would normally be taken literally should be taken as metaphor and . I think there is more to this theory and you have good reasons to believe that we should take what would normally be taken literally. Reasons that go beyond the fact the gospel writers being bad writers who struggled to write consistently within the books they wrote. However I also think I am going to have to find the answers on my own
-->
@WyIted
Have you ever heard of the popular phrases 1. I am dead inside2. You are dead to me.
Exactly. idioms, as in Dead man walking. Dead to the world. And as " he was dead [to me] now he is alive again Luke 15:24
If you say let the dead bury the dead than you would me let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead.
Yep. I think the bible Luke 9:60 itself has proven my point. As did "let us go that we may die with him" John 11:16
We might just have to end this here.
Yep. Nice speaking with you.