News on Higgs Boson..God Particle...Tuesday night

[kathryn]

I have no problem with the things you wrote in full caps. That's why I've never questioned you about such things. The things that I have problems with are the things that I have been asking you about. I think we would make more progress if we talked about them. That's what I've been trying to do:-) But..not because I have to take ages to explain it...it's simple...it's because things get interrupted , either because of your comments or your time. For instance...rather than ask me why I used the Dove in the type of the "bird", you used it as an excuse to say it was assumption...etc. This is what takes the time.


I saw what you saw in that example because the required elements were there. I didn't need you to explain anything except to state how you view related to what was written. Very simple and clear. The things that I ask about are not so clear. That's why I ask about them. And when I ask I usually don't get answers that I can believe or undersand. And when I ask more questions for clarity, you seem to get frustrated with me. But you have never asked me a clear question. How about....if you ask me one simple question that is on your mind...and I will give you a simple answer. (and lets stick to scripture and creation...no opinions on how we are feeling about it...until it is either satisfactorily proved, or satisfactorily disproved (using the biblical criteria of determining truth. Sound ok to you?


I have made no "assumption" that you are "speaking through some la la, right brained approach with little logic... total subjectivity." First, I am totally into the "right brain" way of thinking (just ask Rose0 and so that would never be a problem. When I say that you methods appear subjective to me, I mean just that. It is NOT an "assumption." It is my attempt to express to you how your post seem to me. And why do they seem that way to me? Because when I ask for explanations I usually get answers that seem subjective and not supported from the Scripture.No..that's not true. I have given you countless witnesses through all 3 stages of redemption...when I've been given the chance to speak without the comments. I don't mind if you say you are having problems with it...but use scripture to show me where you see it conflicting with your understanding. And you assertiont that I didn't answer is rather frustrating because I went to great lengths to answer you.No. Richard...you have not gone to great lengths....far from it. And what happened when I answered? You got more and more frustratedI was frustrated, because the whole post was opinion, feelings and assumptions. Any other posts...have been primarily the same. until I concluded you didn't really want me to tell you how I see things, so I quit. But that was after trying to discuss your theories at great length. Have you forgotten? I wrote two huge posts to you where I explained how I see things, post #191 and #195 in the Matt 17:28 thead, and then you responded with what appeared to me to be a LOT of frustration, and ended by saying "well..on that note...lets agree to disagree."I'll go back and look at that...but I'm sure it isn't as you have described. I never respond that way, with someone who is responding with the same degree of scholarship as I have put into it So that's what I chose to do. And now you tell me I haven't resonded to you? It seems to me that every time I "respond" to you with sincere honesty that I don't follow your logic, you just get frustrated with me and make comments about how I'm stuck in my left brain. That's not the way to communicate. Ask anyone on this forum if they follow your logic. Rick already tried to explain to you that there's a lot he doesn't fallow either. And it doesn't make sense to Rose either. So I really think you need to stop, take a breath, and ask yourself if you are really trying to find common ground with others. It doesn't feel like that to me. I tried to explain that you need to start with agreement and move on from their, but you didn't understand what I said and so responded by saying that you have been doing that for two years. Well I hate to break the news to you, but you have been doing NOTHING like what I suggested. You constantly make all sorts of connections that are not "obvious" in any way at all, and you don't understand what it means to find a "common foundation of agreement." So let me explain it again. Here is what you need to do if you want anyone to understand you. You need to begin by saying something, and if the person agrees, then great! Move to the next point. If there person asks question - like I alway do - you need to try to answer those questions so we can come to agreement. If you just get frustrated with me and tell me that I lost in my "left brain" or the "dead Logos" or whatever, no progress will be made. You didn't answer my question about taking this into the realm of mathematics...and then looking at my point of view . I'll go back and look at that post now.

So heres the deal. I will continue to work with you on this if that is your desire. But if you don't want to find a common foundation of agreement, I'll probably ignore most of your posts. I'm sorry, I don't want to do that, but it seems that you find my questions to difficult or frustrating to answer and I don't have any desire to add to the sum total of frustration in the universe.

All the very best to you, my friend,

Richard

[kathryn]

Sorry Richard...but if you think your responses were adequate in the use of scripture, and in how you used it to question my previous statements...we have a different view on scholarship and discussion. I still feel exactly as I did when I wrote the response to yours. If someone did this with you, in an area you had studied well...your response would have been exactly the same. I made an error of omission...but I explained why. The "bird", in the concept of Jesus' baptism...was the dove, but in order to explain that fully, I would have had to explained all three phases of redemption. As I said before...you have trouble with my small posts...and if I thought you would have taken the time to read them...I would have done it. You've repeatedly said to keep the posts short.

Please remember here...that I am not TRYING to get you to see my point of view. If you are interested, it fills me full of joy to do so....but the way you're addressing this...it makes it sound as though I'm getting all flustered because you're not understanding it. Again...the only frustration is in HOW your are responding. If YOU are curious to know more and WANT to continue on...this is how it needs to be. You ask me one question....I will answer with scripture...and then you show me where you're still having problems , using the scriptural basis for doing so....leaving all opinions of how you are feeling about my response out of it. This is what has been taking the very limited time you've had to spend on this.

[kathryn]

Richard...if you wouldn't mind..just have a look at how Rick (Heb. 13:13) has asked questions in this thread. It makes for a much quicker and easier way of doing this. Thank you!

[debz]

Hey Kathryn, Richard, Rick…

Kathryn, let’s take our cue from Richard:

'…when I ask for explanations I usually get answers that seem subjective and not supported from the Scripture. And you assertion that I didn't answer is rather frustrating because I went to great lengths to answer you. And what happened when I answered? You got more and more frustrated until I concluded you didn't really want me to tell you how I see things, so I quit. But that was after trying to discuss your theories at great length. Have you forgotten? I wrote two huge posts to you where I explained how I see things, post #191 and #195 in the Matt 17:28 thead, and then you responded with what appeared to me to be a LOT of frustration, and ended by saying "well..on that note...lets agree to disagree." So that's what I chose to do. And now you tell me I haven't resonded to you? It seems to me that every time I "respond" to you with sincere honesty that I don't follow your logic, you just get frustrated with me and make comments about how I'm stuck in my left brain. That's not the way to communicate. Ask anyone on this forum if they follow your logic. Rick already tried to explain to you that there's a lot he doesn't fallow either. And it doesn't make sense to Rose either. So I really think you need to stop, take a breath, and ask yourself if you are really trying to find common ground with others. It doesn't feel like that to me. I tried to explain that you need to start with agreement and move on from there, but you didn't understand what I said and so responded by saying that you have been doing that for two years. Well I hate to break the news to you, but you have been doing NOTHING like what I suggested. You constantly make all sorts of connections that are not "obvious" in any way at all, and you don't understand what it means to find a "common foundation of agreement." So let me explain it again. Here is what you need to do if you want anyone to understand you. You need to begin by saying something, and if the person agrees, then great! Move to the next point.'

Frankly, I, too, am frustrated with this conversation for this very reason. He does not see any of what you are pointing out yet, so there is no common ground to build on. On the other hand, there have been some points of connectivity between what Bob May has been posting, and he also saw something new in the Tabernacle typology I presented (the oil—which is actually what he needs to understand more in order to 'understand more'). I also caught his attention when I connected the #15, #120 and the stairs/Psalms of Ascent. THOSE are points of agreement/connection that we can begin to dialogue about and build on. Bob May said that my 'Tabernacle Blueprint' should be 'required reading for believers,' and encouraged Richard to read it. You yourself told me that you’ve never seen anyone present the 'big picture' (or words to that effect) in such a clear and concise way, regarding the entire '555' doc. There are many, many points of connection between what I wrote and Richard’s Dumbo dream, and particularly the subsequent dreams—about the stairs, about the number 15, etc., etc., etc. Maybe it’s not an accident that I started participating in this forum right around the same time Richard posted the Dumbo thread?? However, Richard cannot even have the time to read those things if he is still going round and round on these subjects (that have been going on for two years now, if I’m reading correctly, and he’s still not seeing it??).

Maybe if we give him a little breathing room, and time to read some of those things on his 'to-do list,' and Bob May’s latest posts (which I wonder if Richard has even seen because of all this), then we might find more common ground to build discussions on…or at least have more questions we can start with.

I love ya, but I think we need to back off this part for now, and go with the things that are interesting to him and have his attention -- his dream, etc.

Deb

[kathryn]

I agree Deb. I've said from the very beginning that we need maintain honesty with each other. All Richard had to do was tell me , like Rose...that his focus was on something else right now.
However...IF....we do enter into a discussion, it needs to be done with an equal degree of scholarship. That's all I've ever asked. I have absolutely NO desire to converse with someone who isn't interested. I'm not the force- feeding-the-goose-down the funnel type.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have no problem with the things you wrote in full caps. That's why I've never questioned you about such things. The things that I have problems with are the things that I have been asking you about. I think we would make more progress if we talked about them. That's what I've been trying to do:-) But..not because I have to take ages to explain it...it's simple...it's because things get interrupted , either because of your comments or your time. For instance...rather than ask me why I used the Dove in the type of the "bird", you used it as an excuse to say it was assumption...etc. This is what takes the time.

If it were simple, you could simply state it. But you don't do that. I went back over this thread and noted the many times you claimed to have given an "answer" - and what was the answer? Merely the assertion that the two birds overlap with other types and are therefore "valid." But that's not a proof at all. It's mere assertion. You say it's true, others say it's false. Who is right? How could anyone know? You've never established how anyone can tell the difference between a true "typological interpretation" and something made up by combining random Scriptures. And it seems you still have no idea what is required to communicate even though I have explained it a number of times. It's very simple. We need to begin with some point of agreement and then move forward to the next point. But you refuse to do this so no progress is made.

The point about the "bird" not being a "dove" is a real problem for your theory. So I asked you to give me a reason to believe it and you merely asserted that it "overlapped" with so many other types as if that meant it must be true. But that's not an adequate answer. Why should we begin with the assumption that the baptism of Christ was a fulfillment of the law of leprosy given in Leviticus 14 in the first place? That's the problem. Your assertion that the "bird" was a "type" of the dove and that God used a dove at Christ's baptism to indicate he was fulfilling Lev 14 doesn't make any sense because if that were God's intent why didn't he use doves in the Levitical law? This is why it seems to me that you appear to be just making stuff up to make your theories work. Has anyone else in the history of the world said that Christ's baptism was fulfilling Lev 14? Are you the only one who has ever seen a connection between those two things?

So round and round we go because your theories have no clear support in Scripture. It doesn't matter how hard I try to communicate clearly with you because you are refusing to follow the fundamental rule of communication, which is that you must seek out the foundation of agreement so we can start on the "same page." I have told you this a number of times but you still refuse. Without a foundation of agreement to start from, we have no hope of undestanding each other at all.

I saw what you saw in that example because the required elements were there. I didn't need you to explain anything except to state how you view related to what was written. Very simple and clear. The things that I ask about are not so clear. That's why I ask about them. And when I ask I usually don't get answers that I can believe or undersand. And when I ask more questions for clarity, you seem to get frustrated with me. But you have never asked me a clear question. How about....if you ask me one simple question that is on your mind...and I will give you a simple answer. (and lets stick to scripture and creation...no opinions on how we are feeling about it...until it is either satisfactorily proved, or satisfactorily disproved (using the biblical criteria of determining truth. Sound ok to you?

You want simple questions? That's all I've ever asked you. Case in point: give me a one or two line answer for why God chose to use a dove at Christ's baptism but no doves in Lev 14 if his intent was to indicate that Christ's baptism was a fulfillment of that law.

I have made no "assumption" that you are "speaking through some la la, right brained approach with little logic... total subjectivity." First, I am totally into the "right brain" way of thinking (just ask Rose0 and so that would never be a problem. When I say that you methods appear subjective to me, I mean just that. It is NOT an "assumption." It is my attempt to express to you how your post seem to me. And why do they seem that way to me? Because when I ask for explanations I usually get answers that seem subjective and not supported from the Scripture.No..that's not true. I have given you countless witnesses through all 3 stages of redemption...when I've been given the chance to speak without the comments. I don't mind if you say you are having problems with it...but use scripture to show me where you see it conflicting with your understanding.

Youv'e missed the point again. The problem is not with any "conflicts" with Scripture or my understanding. The problem is that you appear to be creating doctrines from randomly connected Scriptures. I've asked you this over and over but you just don't get it - How do you discern between a valid typological connection and a random connection between unrelated Scritpures? How is your typology any different than drawing arbitrary constellations from random stars? How could anyone discern if you are right or wrong?

And you assertiont that I didn't answer is rather frustrating because I went to great lengths to answer you.No. Richard...you have not gone to great lengths....far from it.

Whatever. If you don't see or appreciate how much time I've invested trying to communicate with you, it would be foolish for me to continue trying.

And what happened when I answered? You got more and more frustratedI was frustrated, because the whole post was opinion, feelings and assumptions. Any other posts...have been primarily the same.

That's both false and absurd. I have been holding your feet to the fire and you apparently don't like it. Without my criticism, you would still be falsely asserting that there are doves in Leviticus 14. And it wasn't just a one time mistake. It's what you said in all your posts until I corrected you. I even found it in a post you wrote in 2008! And did you thank me for helping you correct a critical error in your theories? Nope. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

And neither have you given an adequate answer to why God did not use doves in Lev 14 if the dove at Christ's baptism was intended to indicate that he was fulfilling that law.

until I concluded you didn't really want me to tell you how I see things, so I quit. But that was after trying to discuss your theories at great length. Have you forgotten? I wrote two huge posts to you where I explained how I see things, post #191 and #195 in the Matt 17:28 thead, and then you responded with what appeared to me to be a LOT of frustration, and ended by saying "well..on that note...lets agree to disagree."I'll go back and look at that...but I'm sure it isn't as you have described. I never respond that way, with someone who is responding with the same degree of scholarship as I have put into it

It's exactly as I described. Here's the exact words you wrote in post #197:

well..on that note...lets agree to disagree. and maybe have a pint or two

I responded nicely, saying I was sorry that I could not find a way to communicate fruitfully with you and that we would probably be able to resolve these confusions if we talked face to face.

You constantly make all sorts of connections that are not "obvious" in any way at all, and you don't understand what it means to find a "common foundation of agreement." So let me explain it again. Here is what you need to do if you want anyone to understand you. You need to begin by saying something, and if the person agrees, then great! Move to the next point. If there person asks question - like I alway do - you need to try to answer those questions so we can come to agreement. If you just get frustrated with me and tell me that I lost in my "left brain" or the "dead Logos" or whatever, no progress will be made. You didn't answer my question about taking this into the realm of mathematics...and then looking at my point of view . I'll go back and look at that post now.

I have no idea what you mean by "taking this into the realm of mathematics."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

However, Richard cannot even have the time to read those things if he is still going round and round on these subjects (that have been going on for two years now, if I’m reading correctly, and he’s still not seeing it??).

Hey Deb,

Still not seeing what? Could you please state precisely what I am not "seeing" in a sentence or two?

Why do you say I'm the one who is "going round and round?" Do you believe that the Holy Spirit descended as a dove to indicate that Christ was fulfilling Lev 14? If so, why? Did Kathryn give an answer that I missed? If so, please quote it.

Maybe if we give him a little breathing room, and time to read some of those things on his 'to-do list,' and Bob May’s latest posts (which I wonder if Richard has even seen because of all this), then we might find more common ground to build discussions on…or at least have more questions we can start with.

You are correct, I have not looked at the Dumbo thread since the conference started. This kind of non-responsive back and forth stuff wastes a lot of time.

I love ya, but I think we need to back off this part for now, and go with the things that are interesting to him and have his attention -- his dream, etc.

Deb

Thanks for reminding me about the Dumbo thread. I think that will be much more frutful.

But you made a false assumption. I find typology very interesting and have seen it throughout Scripture. But I have "standards" by which typology is established, and when I tried to apply those standards to this conversation, the shit hit the fan.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree Deb. I've said from the very beginning that we need maintain honesty with each other. All Richard had to do was tell me , like Rose...that his focus was on something else right now.
However...IF....we do enter into a discussion, it needs to be done with an equal degree of scholarship. That's all I've ever asked. I have absolutely NO desire to converse with someone who isn't interested. I'm not the force- feeding-the-goose-down the funnel type.

I did tell you, and then when I responded to something else in another thread you complained that I didn't respond in another thread so I chose to take some time to try to communicate with you. I put in some serious effort, but you write as if I've done nothing. And the same thing happened as every other time I have tried to have a conversation with you on this topic. Don't blame it on me.

As for "scholarship" - I don't think it's proper, or accurate, for you to assert that your "scholarship" is supperior to mine, especially since I'm the one who corrected your chronic error concerning the "doves" that don't even exist in Leviticus 14. And besides that, I very much doubt you could find a single published scholar on the planet who would support your theory about the relation between the law of leprosy and the baptism of Christ. This conversation is becoming absurd.

The real issue is that I ask simple and direct questions that you can't answer, and so you cop an attitude. Rick tried to gently explain the same thing to you, but you didn't hear him either.

Sorry for the plain speach, but you seem pretty comfortable dishing it out so I assumed you'd have no trouble receiving some back.

[debz]

Hey Deb,

Still not seeing what? Could you please state precisely what I am not "seeing" in a sentence or two?

Why do you say I'm the one who is "going round and round?" Do you believe that the Holy Spirit descended as a dove to indicate that Christ was fulfilling Lev 14? If so, why? Did Kathryn give an answer that I missed? If so, please quote it.

Morning Richard

I believe it’s both you and Kathryn going 'round and round' on this subject and getting nowhere. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. And you’re not 'seeing' what she’s trying to communicate, so seems like another approach should be taken. Also, Kathryn has referred to the Law being the 'plummet line' and that everything is revealed through the Law. I agree with that (and that it is also in The Prophets, and summed up entirely in Christ). However, this is what 2 Cor 3:14-17 is talking about:

2 Cor 3:14-18

"…for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

This is not just applicable to the Jews. This applies to anyone as to whether they can 'see' beyond the surface words in The Law. The thing is, most Christians believe that this veil is removed in them because they have 'turned to the Lord' when they first believed. But I disagree.

Take a look at Jonathan Mitchell’s Translation of this verse (best N.T. translation I’ve found; Koine Greek expert…):

'Yet whenever the time should be reached when it [= the heart] will twist and turn upon, so as to face toward, [the] Lord [= Christ], 'the head covering (veil) is by habit progressively taken from around [it]' (Note: a quote of Ex 34:34). Now the Lord [= Christ or Yahweh] continuously exists being the Spirit (or: Yet the Breath-effect is the Lord), so where [the] Lord’s Breath-effect (Spirit; Attitude) [blows there is] freedom (or: and so in the place in which the Breath-effect – the Spirit – which is [the] Lord [Christ or Yahweh] [blows], liberty [comes].

This is why I referenced needing an understanding of the 'oil' in the Tabernacle typology. The oil represents the Holy Spirit and at this point it represents a baptism in the Holy Spirit that saturates the soul realm—mind, will, and emotions. Whereas on first belief we have a deposit in our spirit man, that is not yet sufficient to affect our minds and have our minds be influenced by the Spirit of Truth, who leads us into all Truth (going through the Door to the Holy Place). Until we experience this baptism, we cannot begin to understand spiritual language, we are still thinking and reasoning as a 'natural man.'

1 Cor 2:12-14
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

We are still spiritual 'infants,' living on the milk of the Word (straight up Logos), and can’t begin to grow up until we have the 'elementary teachings' understood—one of which is instruction about 'baptisms' (plural), which is understanding (and having) this baptism of the Spirit (Bob May also writing about this…). And it doesn't matter if we've "been a Christian" 1 year or 100 years--chronological age has nothing to do with spiritual age.

Heb 5:11-6:3
"We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

You are correct, I have not looked at the Dumbo thread since the conference started. This kind of non-responsive back and forth stuff wastes a lot of time.


Thanks for reminding me about the Dumbo thread. I think that will be much more frutful.

But you made a false assumption. I find typology very interesting and have seen it throughout Scripture. But I have "standards" by which typology is established, and when I tried to apply those standards to this conversation, the shit hit the fan.

I agree...that's why I'm trying to get the conversation onto some of the more obvious typology.

Deb

OH...and this is what Is 28 is referring to as well: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." We must be "weaned" from the pure milk of the word in order to start really understanding the teachings.