Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus
#1
It is not wise to act without thinking beforehand. My god, before ("before" taken logically, not chronologically since time was not before creation) creating the heavens and the earth reflected.
No wise individual would omit, at some point, to reflect on his own self. My god's reflection on his own self is his first reflection because he is all wise. Another consequence of his being all wise is that this introspection reflects perfectly its thinker: this introspection is my god's essence.

When you make something you first conceive it. You need a plan to build your house. On the other hand, conceiving needs not your prior conceiving that conception: it is direct, it is a concept: it is your son because you don't need a plan to product your son.
My god's essence i.e., his concept is his son: Jesus.
So I have to admit that my god is Jesus. But "is" is to be taken in the sense of predication not "=". Think of "this flower is red": that flower isn't = red because that flower is a space-time object while "red" is a concept.

So I can boldly claim with Paul that Jesus is the express image (essence) of his (my god's) person. But I cannot accept that Jesus = the Father because e.g.,

Quote:no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11.27)

i.e., only my god knows his son which thing is obvious once one realizes that the son = my god's essence because knowing the son means to recognize one's self in my god's essence and this only my god can because you would hardly expect somebody other than you to recognize his self when you utter "I", you only recognize yourself when you so utter. But only through my god's essence can you know my god because you know no thing except through its concept.

Now unlike everything else, my god's essence is not before ("before" as before i.e., taken as logical precedence) its object (my god) because my god did conceive it, he thought it. A flower's concept, on the contrary, precedes that flower. Also unlike many concepts, my god's concept (Jesus) isn't dead (the concepts of number, of a circle etc. are dead: they can be grasped in a finite lifespan) because otherwise man could know my god in a finite lifespan but this isn't the case. Indeed:

Quote:And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33.20)

If man should see him (i.e., know god most high) and live it would mean that god most high would be known by man in a finite lifespan. For this you need life eternal:

Quote:And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17.3)
#2
My god's essence, his concept, his son has life in himself; why? Because my god's name (essence) is "I AM" (Yahweh) i.e., his "I" contains his existence.

Quote:And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3.14)

But since my god's name, his essence is "I AM", his chief property is that he exists, that is he is Existence, the Rock. Hence my god, the Father, is in his Son because Existence is implied by its essence and the Son is in the Father because my god did conceive his Son in his mind by introspection, by reflecting on his self.

Quote:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. (John 14.11)
Quote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God. (John 1.1)

That the Word (Logos) was God means that "God" i.e., the concept, the essence of [the] God is that Logos.

Jesus is that un-created mathematical & conceptual realm, the Logos, the "I" of my god (but not he to whom that "I" applies, that is the Father), the only thing giving true joy.

The Son of Man is the shadow of the eternal i.e., prior to creation Son of God. The creation of the heavens and the earth needs a prior plan according to which that creation should proceed. A plan is a concept, we need this creation's concept. Now this concept is to be found in the conceptual "space" i.e., in the eternal Son of God, in my god's essence, in the Logos. So, that essence has to be analyzed if one wants to discover the concept of the shadow of the eternal, of God's garment, of creation:

Quote:I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee. (Psalm 102.24-28)

This eternal analysis of the concept of God i.e., the slaughter of the Son of God for creation's sake is shadowed by the Son of Man's sacrifice for Adam's (Man, Earth) sake. Jesus is

Quote:the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13.8)

In particular the Son of Man's death and rising from the dead shadows the eternal reduction ad absurdum "if God doesn't exist then God exists".

Is your god = my god?
#3
Plato:

Quote:By god, Socrates, Glaucon said, don't desert us with the end almost in sight. We'll be satisfied if you discuss the good as you discussed justice, moderation, and the rest. That, my friend, I said, would satisfy me too, but I'm afraid that I won't be up to it and that I'll disgrace myself and look ridiculous by trying. So let's abandon the quest for what the good itself is for the time being, for even to arrive at my own view about it is too big a topic for the discussion we are now started on. But I am willing to tell you about what is apparently an offspring of the good and most like it. Is that agreeable to you, or would you rather we let the whole matter drop? It is. The story about the father remains a debt you'll pay another time. I wish that I could pay the debt in full, and you receive it instead of just the interest. So here, then, is this child and offspring of the good. But be careful that I don't somehow deceive you unintentionally by giving you an illegitimate account of the child. We'll be as careful as possible, so speak on. I will when we've come to an agreement and recalled some things that we've already said both here and many other times. Which ones? We say that there are many beautiful things and many good things, and so on for each kind, and in this way we distinguish them in words. We do. And beauty itself and good itself and all the things that we thereby set down as many, reversing ourselves, we set down according to a single form of each, believing that there is but one, and call it "the being" of each. That's true. And we say that the many beautiful things and the rest are visible but not intelligible, while the forms are intelligible but not visible. That's completely true. With what part of ourselves do we see visible things? With our sight. And so audible things are heard by hearing, and with our other senses we perceive all the other perceptible things.
#4
Quote:That's right. Have you considered how lavish the maker of our senses was in making the power to see and be seen? I can't say I have. Well, consider it this way. Do hearing and sound need another kind of thing in order for the former to hear and the latter to be heard, a third thing in whose absence the one won't hear or the other be heard? No, they need nothing else. And if there are any others that need such a thing, there can't be many of them. Can you think of one? I can't. You don't realize that sight and the visible have such a need? How so? Sight may be present in the eyes, and the one who has it may try to use it, and colors may be present in things, but unless a third kind of thing is present, which is naturally adapted for this very purpose, you know that sight will see nothing, and the colors will remain unseen. What kind of thing do you mean? I mean what you call light. You're right. Then it isn't an insignificant kind of link that connects the sense of sight and the power to be seen—it is a more valuable link than any other linked things have got, if indeed light is something valuable. And, of course, it's very valuable. Which of the gods in heaven would you name as the cause and controller of this, the one whose light causes our sight to see in the best way and the visible things to be seen? The same one you and others would name. Obviously, the answer to your question is the sun. And isn't sight by nature related to that god in this way? Which way? Sight isn't the sun, neither sight itself nor that in which it comes to be, namely, the eye. No, it certainly isn't. But I think that it is the most sunlike of the senses. Very much so. And it receives from the sun the power it has, just like an influx from an overflowing treasury. Certainly. The sun is not sight, but isn't it the cause of sight itself and seen by it? That's right. Let's say, then, that this is what I called the offspring of the good, which the good begot as its analogue. What the good itself is in the intelligible realm, in relation to understanding and intelligible things, the sun is in the visible realm, in relation to sight and visible things.
How? Explain a bit more. You know that, when we turn our eyes to things whose colors are no longer in the light of day but in the gloom of night, the eyes are dimmed and seem nearly blind, as if clear vision were no longer in them. Of course. Yet whenever one turns them on things illuminated by the sun, they see clearly, and vision appears in those very same eyes? d Indeed. Well, understand the soul in the same way: When it focuses on something illuminated by truth and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding, but when it focuses on what is mixed with obscurity, on what comes to be and passes away, it opines and is dimmed, changes its opinions this way and that, and seems bereft of understanding. It does seem that way.
#5
Quote:So that what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower is the form of the good [i.e., the concept of the good, the Son]. And though it is the cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge [the Logos]. Both knowledge and truth are beautiful things, but the good is other and more beautiful than they [Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14.25)]. In the visible realm, light and sight are rightly considered sunlike, but it is wrong to think that they are the sun, so here it is right to think of knowledge and truth as goodlike but wrong to think that either of them is the good—for the good is yet more prized.This is an inconceivably beautiful thing you're talking about, if it provides both knowledge and truth and is superior to them in beauty [God = Existence is above the Son = Word & the Spirit = Truth]. You surely don't think that a thing like that could be pleasure? Hush! Let's examine its image in more detail as follows. How? You'll be willing to say, I think, that the sun not only provides visible
things with the power to be seen but also with coming to be, growth, and nourishment, although it is not itself coming to be. How could it be? Therefore, you should also say that not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the good, but their being is also due to it, although the good is not being, but superior to it in rank and power [God = Existence, the original Object, the Son = essence of existence, the original concept, the Spirit = life, Truth], And Glaucon comically said: By Apollo, what a daemonic superiority! It's your own fault; you forced me to tell you my opinion about it. (The Republic VI, Socrates / Glaucon, Plato)

The Trinity is an idol, just like Allah. The good = existence itself = the Rock = the Father = the sun = the god = Yahweh. The light = the offspring of the good = the essence of existence = the Son = the very concept of god = Jesus.

Yahweh != Yeshua.
#6
Stalin killed Trotskyism, real Communism, by substituting for it a formal one.

The Pharisees were formalists, concerned with the outward. Jesus is Spirit inward & Satan outward. Satan is the contradiction of the Spirit. The outward is the contradiction of the inward.

Satan is a creature, the Spirit is eternal. Satan is a liar, the Spirit is truth. Satan, being a liar, blasphemes against the Spirit & therefore shall die.

The Pharisees took Jesus to be Satan because they excel in the outward & Jesus, in the outward, is Satan. Therefore they hanged the outward Jesus, the son of man, their Satan, on a tree. But these Pharisees, taking the outward for the whole i.e., believing Jesus to be Satan, have shown the law to be outward & just.
Man, by his being inward, is not subjected to the law.
The inner man thinks, lives in the Logos, understands the law. The outer man is still subjected to, works the law.
Only an outward Satan & inward Spirit can prove the law to be just & outward. Just because Satan is judged. Outward because the inward Spirit, the Light, it sees not.
Jesus has redeemed us by his blood from the just retribution of death which is begotten of sin. We must introspect, live in the Son.

Moreover, the outward Jesus is Satan. Jesus, by his outward, reveals the Antichrist. The Antichrist will be indistinguishable from the outward Jesus. Studying the Bible is rewarding.

Quote:Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God [the Catholics' Jesus is God]. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way [two witnesses, those who live in heaven]. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders [acting like the outward Jesus], And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2.1-12)
#7
But how is it that Jesus is Satan outward?

Quote:Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: (Luke 12.51)

Quote:And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? (Matthew 12.25, 26)

Satan is divided with Satan.

Quote:Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Matthew 10.16)

But remember not to neglect your being doves i.e., your being filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote:But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12.28)

Satan outward, Spirit inward.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)