PDA

View Full Version : News on Higgs Boson..God Particle...Tuesday night



kathryn
12-12-2011, 08:27 PM
Stay tuned for news on the "God Particle" (higgs boson) tommorow night at 8pm
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/god-particle-coming-into-focus/?hpt=hp_c2

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 12:08 AM
Stay tuned for news on the "God Particle" (higgs boson) tommorow night at 8pm
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/god-particle-coming-into-focus/?hpt=hp_c2
That looks very interesting! But it doesn't have anything to do with God actually. They just call it that because it's the last piece in the puzzle of fundamental particle physics. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle.22).

kathryn
12-13-2011, 12:32 AM
That looks very interesting! But it doesn't have anything to do with God actually. They just call it that because it's the last piece in the puzzle of fundamental particle physics. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle.22).

I was aware they use it as a metaphor....but....put it this way, if you've read all of the Deuteronomy 29:29 thread, call it what you will....."it's" speaking to us loud and clear, in subtlety and wit, "it" has a wonderful sense of humor in how "it" put together the universe...(gotta love the ejection of that insatiable mass-muncher! oh! and that comet!) "it" is bringing us Joy unspeakable, Unity, Love, Hope and Assurance, revelation on revelation all woven together and woven through the intimate details of our lives! Whatever "it" is....well.....there isn't much more than that! Call it what you will....:p

Love the 17 mile circuit of the CERN collider! Fits in so perfectly with today's proceeding word and confirmation on the circuit!. :winking0071: (gosh..and yesterday's too!) And...how much you want to bet, tommorow's "news" will be related to some theme we've been discussing? :winking0071:

kathryn
12-13-2011, 08:42 AM
That little "God Particle" has been singing songs all week. :winking0071: This morning "it" seems stuck on songs from My Fair Lady :winking0071: and "'enry 'iggins".

I am convinced that the announcement tonight on the "God Particle" is going to express something about the theme on the Deuteronomy 29:29 thread....simply because we had such an amazing "sign" (heh...COINincidence) on the "integrated circuit" that tied the whole thread together. (along with the number 17...and the collider is a 17 mile circuit) http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2680-Deuteronomy-29-29/page2

Looked up the name "Higgs Boson"....which makes me even more convinced. "Higgs" comes from "Higgins"...and means viking or norse (NORTH) SEAman (as in the white sea horse, water elephant..hippo...the SEA of Galilee(circuit)

"Boson" is from Boatswain....an unlicensed seaman of the deck department of a merchant ship. Bat(boat) Swain(young man...a retainer or SERVANT)

The theme on the thread also involved the USS Cole...which was pierced in its side , killing 17 sailors.

As this is ALL expressing "victory" now.... I have the niggle(nah...more than a niggle...a HIGGle; that's the merger of a giggle and one-mother-of-a-niggle:lol:)...tonights discovery is going to tie in the whole theme...of the TWO who become ONE....those Christ "Twins".

lalalalalalalalalalJust you wait 'Enry 'Iggins just you wait....! lalalalalalalalal

Remember 'enry was trying to get her to pronounce her "H' and she kept dropping them:D ?(kinda like you teaching me physics...:hysterical:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQpoyfbWJ0

Rose
12-13-2011, 08:46 AM
The Bible Wheel found the God particle...:hysterical:

217

kathryn
12-13-2011, 08:48 AM
The Bible Wheel found the God particle...:hysterical:

217

lalalalalala I could have DANCED all night lalalalal!

kathryn
12-13-2011, 08:58 AM
Oh my! About that SEAhorse...white horse/hippo!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyW0q95Thog&feature=related

ps..they cut the "move yer bloomin ass" scene....but it's still loverly!

kathryn
12-13-2011, 10:24 AM
The Creation expresses the PASSIONATE and EXTRAVAGANT nature of the Creator....the beauty and diversity of every snowflake...the daily flinging and splashing of color across the sky at dawn and dusk......a moving, changing wonder, unique from each vantage point on earth, and every second changing, moving, colors merging forming new colors...etc!

His MYSTERY of His relationship with the church is given in type, as act of physical intercourse...and yet we never hear a preacher go into the intimate details of this type. There is a LONGING and PASSION in this, a crying of His Word made Flesh in all creation....for us to KNOW Him (and our True identity in and through Him...He , in and through us)!

No wonder He gave the curse of the written Logos when they "exchanged the Truth of God (in the things that were PLAINLY seen ) for a Lie!

The uptight/blase'/apathetic/dull/snotty attitude of the "upper class", stifling the passion ...in essence BURYING it....would be "heart-breaking" in comparison to that longing and passion for consummation..the "race" of the white horse(s). We've had our nose in the written Logos, trying to find Life...and its been in front of us all along!

Eliza was expressing His Heart (our True Heart within us) when she loses all control of her inhibitions and reverts back to her true self, as her horse races by...'GET YER BLOOMIN ASS MOVING!"

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 10:42 AM
The Creation expresses the PASSIONATE and EXTRAVAGANT nature of the Creator....the beauty and diversity of every snowflake...the daily flinging and splashing of color across the sky at dawn and dusk......a moving, changing wonder, unique from each vantage point on earth, and every second changing, moving, colors merging forming new colors...etc!

His MYSTERY of His relationship with the church is given in type, as act of physical intercourse...and yet we never hear a preacher go into the intimate details of this type. There is a LONGING and PASSION in this, a crying of His Word made Flesh in all creation....for us to KNOW Him (and our True identity in and through Him...He , in and through us)!

No wonder He gave the curse of the written Logos when they "exchanged the Truth of God (in the things that were PLAINLY seen ) for a Lie!

The uptight/blase'/apathetic/dull/snotty attitude of the "upper class", stifling the passion ...in essence BURYING it....would be "heart-breaking" in comparison to that longing and passion for consummation..the "race" of the white horse(s). We've had our nose in the written Logos, trying to find Life...and its been in front of us all along!

Eliza was expressing His Heart (our True Heart within us) when she loses all control of her inhibitions and reverts back to her true self, as her horse races by...'GET YER BLOOMIN ASS MOVING!"
You preach it sister! :prophet: <== a hairy sister - I've seen a few down here in San Francisco! :lmbo:

You are speaking Divine Truth.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 11:08 AM
You preach it sister! :prophet: <== a hairy sister - I've seen a few down here in San Francisco! :lmbo:

You are speaking Divine Truth.

Hairy sister...let me count the ways! This has been so all engrossing the past week...alas....I might soon be able to braid my pits...my legs...well...need I say more!

Here comes another down the pike!....llalalalal give me a head of hair...long beautiful hair lala :hysterical::hippie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8ZBX6bVO3s&feature=related (this one is better than one I first put in:-)

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 11:15 AM
The Bible Wheel found the God particle...:hysterical:



Or, maybe Dumbo found the "God Particle".

The Blood of Christ.

Wait a minute!! I found the God Particle without the BibleWheel or Telescopes!!

:pray: Thank you, Jesus!

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 11:26 AM
Or, maybe Dumbo found the "God Particle".

The Blood of Christ.

Wait a minute!! I found the God Particle without the BibleWheel or Telescopes!!

:pray: Thank you, Jesus!
And that's a good thing! I'd probably be the only one who found it if others had to walk the path of my personal bliss.

Follow your bliss brother. It will never lead you astray because it flows from God and into your heart.

Psalm 37:4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

A word study of this verse is profound. Here is Strong's definition of "delight":

Strong's 6026
gn;[' `anag {aw-nag'}
Meaning:
1) to be soft, be delicate, be dainty 1a) (Pual) to be delicate 1b) (Hithpael) 1b1) to be of dainty habit, be pampered 1b2) to be happy about, take exquisite delight 1b3) to make m

It sounds so very gay, doesn't it? Maybe that's why gays seem so close to God sometimes.

Make youself "dainty" with the lord!

And what is "exquisite delight" if not "bliss?"

And those desires of your heart? Those are the things you feel inside ... God's bliss calling you from your heart because it is your heart that has direct gnosis of God.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 11:43 AM
And that's a good thing! I'd probably be the only one who found it if others had to walk the path of my personal bliss.

Follow your bliss brother. It will never lead you astray because it flows from God and into your heart.

Psalm 37:4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

A word study of this verse is profound. Here is Strong's definition of "delight":

Strong's 6026
gn;[' `anag {aw-nag'}
Meaning:
1) to be soft, be delicate, be dainty 1a) (Pual) to be delicate 1b) (Hithpael) 1b1) to be of dainty habit, be pampered 1b2) to be happy about, take exquisite delight 1b3) to make m

It sounds so very gay, doesn't it? Maybe that's why gays seem so close to God sometimes.

Make youself "dainty" with the lord!

And what is "exquisite delight" if not "bliss?"

And those desires of your heart? Those are the things you feel inside ... God's bliss calling you from your heart because it is your heart that has direct gnosis of God.

Ahh! That's very profound. It's that two sided coin again, expressing the carnal/divine paradox. Jesus came as the male personification of Asenath. (I (Jesus) will be hated : SHE has stored up.) The carnal mind would say "she" was in drag! The transgender nature of God, seen through the fruit of the divided Tree , can't understand the integration/consummation of its true identity as the Tree of Life.

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 11:51 AM
And that's a good thing! I'd probably be the only one who found it if others had to walk the path of my personal bliss.

Follow your bliss brother. It will never lead you astray because it flows from God and into your heart.

Psalm 37:4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

A word study of this verse is profound. Here is Strong's definition of "delight":

Strong's 6026
gn;[' `anag {aw-nag'}
Meaning:
1) to be soft, be delicate, be dainty 1a) (Pual) to be delicate 1b) (Hithpael) 1b1) to be of dainty habit, be pampered 1b2) to be happy about, take exquisite delight 1b3) to make m

It sounds so very gay, doesn't it? Maybe that's why gays seem so close to God sometimes.

Make youself "dainty" with the lord!

And what is "exquisite delight" if not "bliss?"

And those desires of your heart? Those are the things you feel inside ... God's bliss calling you from your heart because it is your heart that has direct gnosis of God.

Nice, very nice. :winking0071:

Actually, come to think of it, my "bliss" has led me astray. Is that possible? Was I really astray? Is there an opposite to being led astray?

Psa 119:67
Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 12:24 PM
Nice, very nice. :winking0071:

Actually, come to think of it, my "bliss" has led me astray. Is that possible? Was I really astray? Is there an opposite to being led astray?

Psa 119:67
Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.

We have had so many variations on that theme of the Ass/Donkey stage of all this. I think "astray" is the ASS TRAY that holds the cup of gall (rosh head)....which then becomes the Butler's (cupbearer) tray, bearing the New Wine:winking0071:

Could be the ASH tray too (with Elisa dropping that "H")....which becomes Beauty (for ashes):-) That God Particle seems to love puns, doesn't "it"? :lol:

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 12:37 PM
Nice, very nice. :winking0071:

Actually, come to think of it, my "bliss" has led me astray. Is that possible? Was I really astray? Is there an opposite to being led astray?

Psa 119:67
Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.
Good question. There are no "simple answers" when words are processed only through the left brain. But if we process them using both hemipheres (the left divides, the right unites) we will come closer to an expression of the true path.

When you were led astray, can you honestly say that you were "following your bliss?" Was your heart at peace and in communion with the Spirit of Life that flows from God to every creature? If not, then you weren't really following your bliss because your eyes were not open to the truth yet.

Do you think there is a true "bliss" apart from God? If not, then we are safe to say "follow your bliss." But if we start in a "fallen state" far from consciousness of love, then we must first learn to love, for that is the only true bliss.

I have had a transformative week. I used to fear people because I saw them as "others" and felt a need to protect myself. Now I have no fear because I realise that there are no "other people" since I am one of them. There is only "us" - no "us vs. them." I am in Oakland. I've been wandering all through the poorest parts of town where the muder rate is very high. I am not naively pollyannaish - I keep my discening skeptical eye open, but I just don't let it dominate. I am approached by hungry people every few hours and I give anything I can because I see the Divine Spirit in each person. I can truly say I've receive from them something of greater value than any material thing that I give them. Something happened that opened my eye to see through the disguise of the flesh to behold the glorious and eternal Divine Being hidden beneath the apparent "differences" between "them" and me. So now I feel like I have a vast army of allies that would come to my aide if they saw me threatened by one of the "outliers" that have not this vision of love. And even if I encounter such a person who demanded, say, my wallet, I would look into that soul and offer my help in anyway possible, and tell that person that I am willing to help, and that he doesn't have to hurt to me to get that help. Sure, it won't necessarily work in every case - there are some people so traumatized by life that they can't trust anyone. But that's very, very rare. Most people, even "criminals" are just looking for what they need. So now, consider my new condition in this world. Where once I might have feared to walk the streets of Oakland at night, mistrusting every "black" man that passed me, I now see a friend to whom I am a conscious ally. And of the few that are a true threat, the majority of those can be won by an open hand and pure love willing to lay itself down for them. And of the very few that remain a "threat" because of their great pain and darkness in which they have lived, I accept that as part of the Universe and trust the Living Universe to guide me through the bliss revealed directly from God into my heart to keep me safe. It is only when I deviate from that bliss that I fear.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Now that's a Gospel with hands and feet!

kathryn
12-13-2011, 12:40 PM
I've just found an article on the news release. While it wasn't an earth shattering revelation, here is the interesting part:

Determining what mass the Higgs has helps focus scientists' search for other new physics. For example, a Higgs with a mass around the range of 124 to 126 billion electron volts is "not so bad for supersymmetry," said Heuer, referring to another theory that predicts a partner particle for each one that has already been identified.:winking0071:

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/New-data-narrows-down-on-the-Higgs-boson-God-particle/tabid/1160/articleID/236468/Default.aspx#ixzz1gRf7jo5n

kathryn
12-13-2011, 12:46 PM
Out theme has been also emphasing the "narrow way" and plummet line in the "small beginning"....(Paul(little) little Rock...little hollow(Logan/Corey)

"The most important result is that we have been able to restrict the most likely mass region to a very narrow range," she said.
Afterward, Guido Tonelli, lead physicist for the team running the separate CMS experiment, outlined findings similar to those of the ATLAS team, saying the particle is most likely found "in the low mass region" among the spectrum of possible Higgs masses.
CERN's director-general, Rolf Heuer, said "the window for the Higgs mass gets smaller and smaller".


Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/New-data-narrows-down-on-the-Higgs-boson-God-particle/tabid/1160/articleID/236468/Default.aspx#ixzz1gRgwqiyQ

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:02 PM
We have had so many variations on that theme of the Ass/Donkey stage of all this. I think "astray" is the ASS TRAY that holds the cup of gall (rosh head)....which then becomes the Butler's (cupbearer) tray, bearing the New Wine:winking0071:

Could be the ASH tray too (with Elisa dropping that "H")....which becomes Beauty (for ashes):-) That God Particle seems to love puns, doesn't "it"? :lol:
I've always loved puns, and it is a favorite form amongst Rabbinical interpretors. And for good - the Bible is full of them.

It's funny about the "ass" theme that you find so revealing. I haven't entered into it yet. That's the problem with personal revelations. They are often only meaningful to the person who has them. This I know from my Dumbo Dream - or at least I thought I knew it since now a few folks are showing some real interest. But still, the "numinosity" of such insights is very personal and hard to share. It seems they are "lit up" only for the person who first saw them because they are really pretty silly when looked at objectively (from the outside). They are like Chinese lamps without the lamp inside. Just a bit of colored paper ...

The "ass" idea has a long history in the mystical tradition. In my recollection it is used as a metaphor for our physical body in relation to our spirit. But I don't know if it is correct at all to make such a dualistic distinction. We may well be a unified "body/mind/spirit" just as "matter" is probably a mode of expression of Spirit/Mind/God. Duality arises from a state of consciousness and can be transcended by direct gnosis of Reality.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:14 PM
I've always loved puns, and it is a favorite form amongst Rabbinical interpretors. And for good - the Bible is full of them.

It's funny about the "ass" theme that you find so revealing. I haven't entered into it yet. That's the problem with personal revelations. They are often only meaningful to the person who has them. This I know from my Dumbo Dream - or at least I thought I knew it since now a few folks are showing some real interest. But still, the "numinosity" of such insights is very personal and hard to share. It seems they are "lit up" only for the person who first saw them because they are really pretty silly when looked at objectively (from the outside). They are like Chinese lamps without the lamp inside. Just a bit of colored paper ...

The "ass" idea has a long history in the mystical tradition. In my recollection it is used as a metaphor for our physical body in relation to our spirit. But I don't know if it is correct at all to make such a dualistic distinction. We may well be a unified "body/mind/spirit" just as "matter" is probably a mode of expression of Spirit/Mind/God. Duality arises from a state of consciousness and can be transcended by direct gnosis of Reality.

They do seem very subjective at first, I know....but when we take it into the realm of the Hologram as One....it applies to all of us. In scripture, the Donkey, is THE primary type of the dual-nature of the Body(carnal/divine mule/horse) in the process of refining, before it has its neck broken (and the neck is the Ivory..Elephantinos...upon which the Divine Head or mind can be placed)

I had the word (my inner voice projected from across the room, projected from the wall) that I would be the "hole" of the Ass....or the DUMB "o". It is when it begins to intergrate with others dreams/visions etc... who are the One, that we see it isn't subjective. We also had the theme in the song "Lil Red Riding Hood"...where the bag of "seed" is reversed or turned, to reveal the "hole" digger. (as in "plowing up the fallow ground)

One of satan's "tricks" is to keep us thinking this is all personal to us....even giving us a false humility in sharing it...because it seems subjective. Why? Because God is trying to get us to see the Word made Flesh, His (and ours) TRUE nature in and through Creation. We're still trading the Truth of God for a Lie...until we see this.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:16 PM
Ahh! That's very profound. It's that two sided coin again, expressing the carnal/divine paradox. Jesus came as the male personification of Asenath. (I (Jesus) will be hated : SHE has stored up.) The carnal mind would say "she" was in drag! The transgender nature of God, seen through the fruit of the divided Tree , can't understand the integration/consummation of its true identity as the Tree of Life.
You really lost me here. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. It seems so arbitrary. Is Jesus the "personification" of every character in the Bible? If not, how do you discern which one's apply and which don't? And what good is this kind of game? If we draw arbitrary lines between any points we want, then we can draw any picture we want, and then it seems we are not really learning anything from the text at all, but rather using the text like a coloring book and obscuring any message it might contain.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:21 PM
Once we "see" our Oneness....there's no stopping the full communion of the "saints". We will be like Him, when we see Him as He is. Our "one" eye...RAVISHES Him. (song of solomon) It's the last Lie or vain imagination...satan tries to keep us consuming.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:23 PM
You really lost me here. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. It seems so arbitrary. Is Jesus the "personification" of every character in the Bible? If not, how do you discern which one's apply and which don't? And what good is this kind of game? If we draw arbitrary lines between any points we want, then we can draw any picture we want, and then it seems we are not really learning anything from the text at all, but rather using the text like a coloring book and obscuring any message it might contain.

You've missed a lot of this while you were away. Would you like me to find it for you...or do you just want to read through stuff as you go along?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:24 PM
They do seem very subjective at first, I know....but when we take it into the realm of the Hologram as One....it applies to all of us. In scripture, the Donkey, is THE primary type of the dual-nature of the Body(carnal/divine mule/horse) in the process of refining, before it has its neck broken (and the neck is the Ivory..Elephantinos...upon which the Divine Head or mind can be placed)

Why do you say that? Where is the "donkey" used as a "type" of the Body? If you could show me that the BIBLE actually uses the donkey as a "primary type" that would really help. No need to explain anything in detail. Just show me the places where the Scripture actually uses the donkey as a type of the body so I can see it for myself. That should be helpful.



I had the word (my inner voice projected from across the room, projected from the wall) that I would be the "hole" of the Ass....or the DUMB "o". It is when it begins to intergrate with others dreams/visions etc... who are the One, that we see it isn't subjective. We also had the theme in the song "Lil Red Riding Hood"...where the bag of "seed" is reversed or turned, to reveal the "hole" digger. (as in "plowing up the fallow ground)

Yeah, well we all know what comes out of the "hole" in the "ass." Is that what you want to share with the world? There's a reason the Bible commanded the Israelites to have spades to bury their shit. It stinks. It can spread disease. I think it's gonna take a little more work for me to understand your metaphors and types.



One of satan's "tricks" is to keep us thinking this is all personal to us....even giving us a false humility in sharing it...because it seems subjective. Why? Because God is trying to get us to see the Word made Flesh, His (and ours) TRUE nature in and through Creation. We're still trading the Truth of God for a Lie...until we see this.
Well shit IS personal to us! And it's not something that most folks like to "share" with others. It seems like a lousy metaphor for Divine Revelation. But then again, maybe we need you to remind us that shit is part of the Unity of Everything. And that's cool - I can "dig that." But I can't really relish it.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:26 PM
You really lost me here. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. It seems so arbitrary. Is Jesus the "personification" of every character in the Bible? If not, how do you discern which one's apply and which don't? And what good is this kind of game? If we draw arbitrary lines between any points we want, then we can draw any picture we want, and then it seems we are not really learning anything from the text at all, but rather using the text like a coloring book and obscuring any message it might contain.

Can I ask you a favor? Please don't make judgements at this point...as it being a game, or drawing arbitrary lines. This takes us back the night of our little "thing" about the birds. I am fully able to demonstrate this, as precisely as a mathematical forumula. Will you trust me in this...long enough to give me a chance...before coming to any conclusions?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:27 PM
You really lost me here. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. It seems so arbitrary. Is Jesus the "personification" of every character in the Bible? If not, how do you discern which one's apply and which don't? And what good is this kind of game? If we draw arbitrary lines between any points we want, then we can draw any picture we want, and then it seems we are not really learning anything from the text at all, but rather using the text like a coloring book and obscuring any message it might contain.
You've missed a lot of this while you were away. Would you like me to find it for you...or do you just want to read through stuff as you go along?
If it takes a lot of words to explain, then it's not an answer to my question. And the "type" is certainly has not been used as "THE primary type in the Bible."

Has the >>>BIBLE<<< used this type or not? If so, where? Just point me to the verses where it is used so I can see it myself. If it is real I don't need a detailed explanation.

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 01:29 PM
Good question. There are no "simple answers" when words are processed only through the left brain. But if we process them using both hemipheres (the left divides, the right unites) we will come closer to an expression of the true path.

When you were led astray, can you honestly say that you were "following your bliss?" Was your heart at peace and in communion with the Spirit of Life that flows from God to every creature? If not, then you weren't really following your bliss because your eyes were not open to the truth yet.

Do you think there is a true "bliss" apart from God? If not, then we are safe to say "follow your bliss." But if we start in a "fallen state" far from consciousness of love, then we must first learn to love, for that is the only true bliss.

I have had a transformative week. I used to fear people because I saw them as "others" and felt a need to protect myself. Now I have no fear because I realise that there are no "other people" since I am one of them. There is only "us" - no "us vs. them." I am in Oakland. I've been wandering all through the poorest parts of town where the muder rate is very high. I am not naively pollyannaish - I keep my discening skeptical eye open, but I just don't let it dominate. I am approached by hungry people every few hours and I give anything I can because I see the Divine Spirit in each person. I can truly say I've receive from them something of greater value than any material thing that I give them. Something happened that opened my eye to see through the disguise of the flesh to behold the glorious and eternal Divine Being hidden beneath the apparent "differences" between "them" and me. So now I feel like I have a vast army of allies that would come to my aide if they saw me threatened by one of the "outliers" that have not this vision of love. And even if I encounter such a person who demanded, say, my wallet, I would look into that soul and offer my help in anyway possible, and tell that person that I am willing to help, and that he doesn't have to hurt to me to get that help. Sure, it won't necessarily work in every case - there are some people so traumatized by life that they can't trust anyone. But that's very, very rare. Most people, even "criminals" are just looking for what they need. So now, consider my new condition in this world. Where once I might have feared to walk the streets of Oakland at night, mistrusting every "black" man that passed me, I now see a friend to whom I am a conscious ally. And of the few that are a true threat, the majority of those can be won by an open hand and pure love willing to lay itself down for them. And of the very few that remain a "threat" because of their great pain and darkness in which they have lived, I accept that as part of the Universe and trust the Living Universe to guide me through the bliss revealed directly from God into my heart to keep me safe. It is only when I deviate from that bliss that I fear.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Now that's a Gospel with hands and feet!

Hi Richard,

I know what you are saying. I was thinking of that verse as I was reading your article. Then I saw the verse. So, now I don't have to paste it for you.:signthankspin:

And then the other verse I was thinking about was this one:
"And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us" (Rom 5:5)

It was the Love of God that was shed abroad in my heart that cast out that fear and made all my enemies no longer enemies. I can truly say I have no enemies when it comes to men. I came to God through love and my message has always been one of love and forgiveness, not fire and brimstone. God's message to Israel when He brought them out of Egypt and through the Red Sea was one of Love and Forgiveness. After that, He began to raise them as children and teach them the walk of righteousness and holiness, constantly delivering them from their enemies as they turned towards Him, in faith.

God has enemies for sure, but I am not to regard any man as my enemy. Vengeance is left to God.

"And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" (Act 13:10)

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (Jas 4:4)


Be well,
Rick

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 01:32 PM
Once we "see" our Oneness....there's no stopping the full communion of the "saints". We will be like Him, when we see Him as He is. Our "one" eye...RAVISHES Him. (song of solomon) It's the last Lie or vain imagination...satan tries to keep us consuming.

Kathryn,

In your belief system, will Christ be one with Satan once again? Will they both make peace with one another?

Thanks,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:36 PM
Why do you say that? Where is the "donkey" used as a "type" of the Body? If you could show me that the BIBLE actually uses the donkey as a "primary type" that would really help. No need to explain anything in detail. Just show me the places where the Scripture actually uses the donkey as a type of the body so I can see it for myself. That should be helpful.
Oy vey oy vey oy vey! I We've been here before! It is in the Levitical Law where the PLUMMET LINE IS LAID IN THE SMALL BEGINNING...revealing exactly what Jesus fulfilled at the cross. The firstborn of ALL creatures are sanctified (as the first fruits) ..however the donkey had to be redeemed by a Lamb. If the person couldn't afford a lamb for the offering...the donkey had to have its neck broken. We are the donkey who can't redeem ourselves. This type goes ALL through scripture, revealing the 3 stages of redemption. There is no obvious verse that says "the donkey is the primary type". Again...do you want to live life in the obvious? Do you respond to "in your face" music? Paintings with one color? Typology is like a beautiful piece of music ...in the same KEY...but with wonderful harmonies weaving throughout.

Yeah, well we all know what comes out of the "hole" in the "ass." Is that what you want to share with the world?do my posts sound like that's what I'm sharing with the world??? When a birth happens at one end...the shit hits the fan at the other. We have to expel the toxins (carnal mindsets) before we take on the Mind of Christ. (the Lamb) There's a reason the Bible commanded the Israelites to have spades to bury their shit. It stinks. It can spread disease. I think it's gonna take a little more work for me to understand your metaphors and types.it doesn't take ANY WORK at all. It is your way of thinking that is getting in the way. I can teach my grandkids the concept of satan and redemption in less than 10 minutes, using the witness in creation.


Well shit IS personal to us! And it's not something that most folks like to "share" with others. It seems like a lousy metaphor for Divine RevelationI never gave it as one. But then again, maybe we need you to remind us that shit is part of the Unity of Everything. And that's cool - I can "dig that." But I can't really relish it.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:38 PM
Can I ask you a favor? Please don't make judgements at this point...as it being a game, or drawing arbitrary lines. This takes us back the night of our little "thing" about the birds. I am fully able to demonstrate this, as precisely as a mathematical forumula. Will you trust me in this...long enough to give me a chance...before coming to any conclusions?
Hey Kathryn,

I'm sorry I used the word "game." That trivializes something that is very important to you. I don't want to be a swine that tramples your pearls. Please forgive me.

I want to be your friend on this. I want to try to help you see how things look from another perspective so maybe we can understand each other better and you will have more success sharing your perceptions with other people. When I say that things seem arbitrary, I'm only describing how it seems to me. I was trying to help you understand. It was not meant as a "judgment" but rather a simple statement of fact. I don't want to pretend to understand something that I don't, and I don't want to just ignore your posts. That's why I asked how you came to the conclusion that Christ was a "personification of Asenath." Can you see why that would strike anyone as "arbitrary?" That's why I asked "how do you discern which one's apply and which don't?". If you can't see this, then there will be very few people that will bother reading your posts because they >seem< like arbitrary (and hence meaningless) associtations.

I'm sorry if I've written things that made you feel I was an "enemy" - I'm just trying to understand.

All the very best to you my friend!

Richard

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:41 PM
Kathryn,

In your belief system, will Christ be one with Satan once again? Will they both make peace with one another?

Thanks,
Rick

Using God's witness in creation...Satan is like the irritant in the oyster that forms the pearl...It is the fly petrified in the amber. It was an evil (divided) spirit , used as a tool, which is destroyed when it is no longer needed, and the "division" has consummated..or become One. Does that help , Rick?

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Hey Kathryn,

I'm sorry I used the word "game." That trivializes something that is very important to you. I don't want to be a swine that tramples your pearls. Please forgive me.

I want to be your friend on this. I want to try to help you see how things look from another perspective so maybe we can understand each other better and you will have more success sharing your perceptions with other people. When I say that things seem arbitrary, I'm only describing how it seems to me. I was trying to help you understand. It was not meant as a "judgment" but rather a simple statement of fact. I don't want to pretend to understand something that I don't, and I don't want to just ignore your posts. That's why I asked how you came to the conclusion that Christ was a "personification of Asenath." Can you see why that would strike anyone as "arbitrary?" That's why I asked "how do you discern which one's apply and which don't?". If you can't see this, then there will be very few people that will bother reading your posts because they >seem< like arbitrary (and hence meaningless) associtations.

I'm sorry if I've written things that made you feel I was an "enemy" - I'm just trying to understand.

All the very best to you my friend!

Richard

Kathryn,

Just to back up Richard, I really don't understand everything you say, either. God doesn't talk to me in numbers and I don't talk to Him in numbers. Others don't talk to me in numbers or types and I don't talk to others that way. If I want to make something obvious to someone, I speak with plain speech and that is what I understand, too. I have never gotten the Asenath typology, either.

I consider myself somewhat intelligent and I know I have a long way to go. I may even be the least intelligent on this prodigious forum, but if it doesn't pass the "simplicity" test, then I usually get suspicious. I did not have a difficult time understanding Richard's Biblewheel book but I am having a difficult time understanding a lot of your posts.

Just taking a cue from Richard's post and letting you know. If I don't tell you I'm confused then that would not be fair to you. I don't want to ignore you, but find myself passing up your posts and I don't want to do that.

All the best,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:52 PM
If it takes a lot of words to explain, then it's not an answer to my question. And the "type" is certainly has not been used as "THE primary type in the Bible."

Has the >>>BIBLE<<< used this type or not? If so, where? Just point me to the verses where it is used so I can see it myself. If it is real I don't need a detailed explanation.

No..again..it is extremely simple...but for weeks now, I have been trying to show you where the plummet is laid in the Law...the small beginning. When we finally came to some peace about this ...you left for the conference. It is the type in the Law, that is the KEY that opens the understanding for the expansion of the type throughout the rest of scripture. If you can't see the concept in the Law...there is no point in me going any farther with it. Again...it is as simple as abc! We just can't seem to get past this one place. So...let me ask you this:

1. can you agree that the plummet line is laid in the Law of Moses? God's Law reveals His character and purposes. Jesus fulfilled the Law.

2. If you agree with the above...can you see why , if you desired to see the type fully revealed, that you would need to understand the Law of the Firstborn..and why the donkey had to be redeemed by a Lamb?

PS...of course I want you to be honest and tell me how you see it....it would just be nice if you left the judgements out...and just said: "I'm still not seeing this. Perhaps you could explain it further". Again...put yourself in my shoes here. You're teaching a mathematical forumla; there's a little snot in the class that keeps standing up saying that it's all subjective, before you've had a chance to get to step 2.:winking0071:

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Using God's witness in creation...Satan is like the irritant in the oyster that forms the pearl...It is the fly petrified in the amber. It was an evil (divided) spirit , used as a tool, which is destroyed when it is no longer needed, and the "division" has consummated..or become One. Does that help , Rick?

Please forgive me, for being "thick-headed".

So, Satan and Jesus will not become one and settle their "divisions" or they will?

What is the "division" that will become One? Usually that speaks of more than one thing. To make something one, usually means 2 or more things. What 2 or more things are you saying will become ONE?

Can you just use God's Word and not His "witness in creation"?

You can come up with almost anything using creation depending on how you "look" at it.

Sorry, if I am exasperating you.
Rick

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 01:56 PM
1. can you agree that the plummet line is laid in the Law of Moses? God's Law reveals His character and purposes. Jesus fulfilled the Law.



Can't we say that God's character and purposes are seen in Creation as the starting point and then with Adam and Eve?

In the thread, "You Can Be Righteous", I showed a little bit of this.

Got to go and will be online either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Bye all,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:57 PM
Kathryn,

Just to back up Richard, I really don't understand everything you say, either. God doesn't talk to me in numbers and I don't talk to Him in numbers. Others don't talk to me in numbers or types and I don't talk to others that way. If I want to make something obvious to someone, I speak with plain speech and that is what I understand, too. I have never gotten the Asenath typology, either.

I consider myself somewhat intelligent and I know I have a long way to go. I may even be the least intelligent on this prodiguous forum, but if it doesn't pass the "simplicity" test, then I usually get suspicious. I did not have a difficult time understanding Richard's Biblewheel book but I am having a difficult time understanding a lot of your posts.

Just taking a cue from Richard's post and letting you know. If I don't tell you I'm confused then that would not be fair to you. I don't want to ignore you, but find myself passing up your posts and I don't want to do that.

All the best,
Rick

Ok Rick...thanks for letting me know:lol:
I need now, to see what you ARE understanding. Do either of you see the TWO who are ONE...who have been "divided" as in the "cutting of the covenant" of ONE animal, cut in half? If that isn't clear, the Asenath /Joseph/Jesus type won't make sense.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 01:57 PM
Why do you say that? Where is the "donkey" used as a "type" of the Body? If you could show me that the BIBLE actually uses the donkey as a "primary type" that would really help. No need to explain anything in detail. Just show me the places where the Scripture actually uses the donkey as a type of the body so I can see it for myself. That should be helpful.
Oy vey oy vey oy vey! I We've been here before! It is in the Levitical Law where the PLUMMET LINE IS LAID IN THE SMALL BEGINNING...revealing exactly what Jesus fulfilled at the cross. The firstborn of ALL creatures are sanctified (as the first fruits) ..however the donkey had to be redeemed by a Lamb. If the person couldn't afford a lamb for the offering...the donkey had to have its neck broken. We are the donkey who can't redeem ourselves. This type goes ALL through scripture, revealing the 3 stages of redemption. There is no obvious verse that says "the donkey is the primary type". Again...do you want to live life in the obvious? Do you respond to "in your face" music? Paintings with one color? Typology is like a beautiful piece of music ...in the same KEY...but with wonderful harmonies weaving throughout.

Excellent - now I know the source of our confusion. When I asked where the BIBLE uses the donkey typology, you answered by telling me where YOU use that typology. That's the key. The Bible may or may not have set up the "donkey" as "THE primary type" - that's subject to debate becaus the BIBLE itself never explicitly >>>USES<<< the donkey as a type.

Now I agree that typology adds great depth and richness to the Bible. But it also allows people to make up whatever they want, and I personally don't have much interest in that. If typology were music, maybe I'm a fan of highly structured symphanies like Beethoven and you are more into improvisational jazz.

The thing is, you keep asserting that all this can be "proven" but every time I look for proof I feel unsatisfied with the answer. I've tried to communicate the reasons many times, but something is blocking our communication. Maybe it would help if you made an effort to see things from my perspective for a few minutes? We're both looking for mutual understanding so let's see if we are smart enough to figure out how to accomplish it! Sound like a plan?



Yeah, well we all know what comes out of the "hole" in the "ass." Is that what you want to share with the world?do my posts sound like that's what I'm sharing with the world??? When a birth happens at one end...the shit hits the fan at the other. We have to expel the toxins (carnal mindsets) before we take on the Mind of Christ. (the Lamb) There's a reason the Bible commanded the Israelites to have spades to bury their shit. It stinks. It can spread disease. I think it's gonna take a little more work for me to understand your metaphors and types.it doesn't take ANY WORK at all. It is your way of thinking that is getting in the way. I can teach my grandkids the concept of satan and redemption in less than 10 minutes, using the witness in creation.

OK - please identify how I need to change my way of thinking, and I'll do my best to follow your instructions. I love that! I want nothing more than to gain new points of view. The prison of the self is that it is only "one point of view." So it would be absolutely wonderful if you could suggest how I should change my thinking. :thumb:



It seems like a lousy metaphor for Divine RevelationI never gave it as one.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you again. I was thinking about your many references to "revelations" through the typology you have been studying.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 01:59 PM
And PLAIN SPEECH is what this is all about....getting away from the precept on precept...which is WHY the witness in Creation is vital....and breathtakingly simple and PLAIN. He pulls down the High Places...mountains in our mind...and RAISES THE PLAIN!

kathryn
12-13-2011, 02:05 PM
Excellent - now I know the source of our confusion. When I asked where the BIBLE uses the donkey typology, you answered by telling me where YOU use that typology. That's the key. The Bible may or may not have set up the "donkey" as "THE primary type" - that's subject to debate becaus the BIBLE itself never explicitly >>>USES<<< the donkey as a type.

Now I agree that typology adds great depth and richness to the Bible. But it also allows people to make up whatever they want, and I personally don't have much interest in that. If typology were music, maybe I'm a fan of highly structured symphanies like Beethoven and you are more into improvisational jazz. Beethoven had no subtleties ? Don't think so! If he had lived in the 20's, he would have been improvising like a mad thing!

The thing is, you keep asserting that all this can be "proven" but every time I look for proof I feel unsatisfied with the answer.THAT'S BECAUSE YOU NEVER HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH! THEN you tell me if it takes a long time...it isn't PLAIN. It is as SIMPLE as the nose on your face (or maybe that neck) but, I have to wade through YOUR mindsets of the written Logos to get to it. NOT MINE!:winking0071: I've tried to communicate the reasons many times, but something is blocking our communication. Maybe it would help if you made an effort to see things from my perspective for a few minutes?of course!! This was why, at the very beginning of this, I tried to take it into the Bible wheel...YOUR REALM. And..if you've noticed, I've been doing nothing but using creation as a witness, for some time now...which is also your realm. We're both looking for mutual understanding so let's see if we are smart enough to figure out how to accomplish it! Sound like a plan? YES!


OK - please identify how I need to change my way of thinking, and I'll do my best to follow your instructions. I love that! I want nothing more than to gain new points of view. The prison of the self is that it is only "one point of view." So it would be absolutely wonderful if you could suggest how I should change my thinking. :thumb:I just did:lol:


I'm sorry if I misunderstood you again. I was thinking about your many references to "revelations" through the typology you have been studying.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 02:05 PM
Ok Rick...thanks for letting me know:lol:
I need now, to see what you ARE understanding. Do either of you see the TWO who are ONE...who have been "divided" as in the "cutting of the covenant" of ONE animal, cut in half? If that isn't clear, the Asenath /Joseph/Jesus type won't make sense.
If the split animal was a type it was a type of Christ who was slain. But he was not "two" that then because one. The two that became one are the Jews and Gentiles. But that doesn't work and it certainly has nothing to do with Asenath (of whom we know almost nothing). So it still seems to me that you are talking in mysteries wrapped in enigmas hidden in obscurity. Please remember, I'm really really really trying to help here. Rick and I are not the only ones who can't understand your posts. If you want to be understood, you must say something understandable, which means that you start with something we clearly agree upon. A common foundation of agreement so we can all start on the same page. Then you can move forward one step at a time, and we will know if and when we lose track with each other. It is the only way.

Much love and peace to you my friend! :hippie:

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 02:09 PM
And PLAIN SPEECH is what this is all about....getting away from the precept on precept...which is WHY the witness in Creation is vital....and breathtakingly simple and PLAIN. He pulls down the High Places...mountains in our mind...and RAISES THE PLAIN!

Hi Kathryn,

Another thing I have a problem with is this "precept upon precept" thing from Isa 28. You cast it into a negative light and I don't see it that way.

Doesn't everyone learn anything, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. Building blocks of education as it were.

Of course sometimes the Lord gives you revelation that explodes in your spirit and you can build up those blocks a bit faster.

And, did He not spend 3 years teaching precept upon precept to His disciples? Much of which came alive when they received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but still, the foundation had to be laid, right?

What is negative in these statements as a way of learning from the Lord? Maybe I am using the wrong phraseology. What is not desirable about the following statements?

Isa 28:9
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.

Isa 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 28:11
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isa 28:12
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Thanks for all your effort,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 02:11 PM
The thing is, you keep asserting that all this can be "proven" but every time I look for proof I feel unsatisfied with the answer.THAT'S BECAUSE YOU NEVER HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH! THEN you tell me if it takes a long time...it isn't PLAIN. It is as SIMPLE as the nose on your face (or maybe that neck) but, I have to wade through YOUR mindsets of the written Logos to get to it. NOT MINE!:winking0071: I've tried to communicate the reasons many times, but something is blocking our communication. Maybe it would help if you made an effort to see things from my perspective for a few minutes?of course!! This was why, at the very beginning of this, I tried to take it into the Bible wheel...YOUR REALM. And..if you've noticed, I've been doing nothing but using creation as a witness, for some time now...which is also your realm. We're both looking for mutual understanding so let's see if we are smart enough to figure out how to accomplish it! Sound like a plan? YES!

OK - please identify how I need to change my way of thinking, and I'll do my best to follow your instructions. I love that! I want nothing more than to gain new points of view. The prison of the self is that it is only "one point of view." So it would be absolutely wonderful if you could suggest how I should change my thinking. :thumb:I just did:lol:

OK - so you say my problem is that I have a "mindset of the written Logos." There might be some truth to that ~ I've been a very "left brain dominant" person most of my life. So what should I do now? What are you instructions that will enable me to understand your posts?

heb13-13
12-13-2011, 02:11 PM
If the split animal was a type it was a type of Christ who was slain. But he was not "two" that then because one. The two that became one are the Jews and Gentiles. But that doesn't work and it certainly has nothing to do with Asenath (of whom we know almost nothing). So it still seems to me that you are talking in mysteries wrapped in enigmas hidden in obscurity. Please remember, I'm really really really trying to help here. Rick and I are not the only ones who can't understand your posts. If you want to be understood, you must say something understandable, which means that you start with something we clearly agree upon. A common foundation of agreement so we can all start on the same page. Then you can move forward one step at a time, and we will know if and when we lose track with each other. It is the only way.

Much love and peace to you my friend! :hippie:


Really gotta go now, but will check back in for any further explanations.

Blessings to you all,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 02:12 PM
If the split animal was a type it was a type of Christ who was slain.The Christ is PLURAL...this is why the levitical sacrifices of the Atonement and cleansing for leprosy were PLURAL..two parts...typifying two works of the ONE CHRIST...Jesus Christ (death work) and Christ in His Corporate Son(s) or seed(s)as the living work But he was not "two" that then because one. The two that became one are the Jews and Gentiles.yes...they are a type..as the male/female...freeman/slave....sceptre/Judah Shiloh/Joseph etc. But that doesn't work and it certainly has nothing to do with Asenath (of whom we know almost nothing). She was the female personification of Joseph.

So it still seems to me that you are talking in mysteries wrapped in enigmas hidden in obscurity. Please remember, I'm really really really trying to help here. Rick and I are not the only ones who can't understand your posts. If you want to be understood, you must say something understandable, which means that you start with something we clearly agree upon. A common foundation of agreement so we can all start on the same page. Then you can move forward one step at a time, and we will know if and when we lose track with each other. It is the only way. I agree...and I have been speaking of that foundation for over two years now.

Much love and peace to you my friend! :hippie::hug:

kathryn
12-13-2011, 02:22 PM
OK - so you say my problem is that I have a "mindset of the written Logos." There might be some truth to that ~ I've been a very "left brain dominant" person most of my life. So what should I do now? What are you instructions that will enable me to understand your posts?
Well..lets start with this. Have any of my conclusions about the foundation of the universe ...as PASSION, EXTRAVAGANT LOVE....PEACE AND GOODWILL AND REDEMPTION FOR ALL MEN AS ONE...caused you any problems, or discord in your heart/mind/spirit? Have any of the witnesses in Creation , or the Logos which I have provided...as they apply to those attributes of God, caused any discord?

You saw the Elisha/hand on hand, this morning, yes? So...taking this back to mathematics....if you had reached the same conclusion as I, through the use of another formula...would you not then assume, that I had reached mine, in an equally valid manner?

IF this is so....then this explains alot of the stuff that blocks our communication...which is the assumption that I'm seeing it through some la la, right brained approach with little logic...totally subjectively. Other than that....I don't know how much clearer I can get, about the Atonement Law...and those birds and goats. I did show you very clearly...how the bird is a type of 3 phases...the sparrow..the raven and the dove. Again..you never responded. So...what can I do with that? At some point..you need to stay with me to complete the forumula to bring it to it's conclusion. But...you have to see the 1+1 =2 , before we can go on to the expansion.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 02:26 PM
Hi Kathryn,

Another thing I have a problem with is this "precept upon precept" thing from Isa 28. You cast it into a negative light and I don't see it that way. Rick..if you read the entire chapter of Isaiah 28, the learning of Him precept upon precept...line upon line, RATHER than KNOWING Him (consuming Him in Rhema...blood and FLESH..the Word made Flesh)....is given as a curse. Read verse one again!

Doesn't everyone learn anything, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. Building blocks of education as it were.

Of course sometimes the Lord gives you revelation that explodes in your spirit and you can build up those blocks a bit faster.

And, did He not spend 3 years teaching precept upon precept to His disciples? Much of which came alive when they received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but still, the foundation had to be laid, right?

What is negative in these statements as a way of learning from the Lord? Maybe I am using the wrong phraseology. What is not desirable about the following statements?

Isa 28:9
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.

Isa 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 28:11
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isa 28:12
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Thanks for all your effort,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 02:31 PM
Can't we say that God's character and purposes are seen in Creation as the starting point and then with Adam and Eve?
Hi Rick..yes, certainly we can see the concept in Adam and Eve...but they were in the early stage of formation. The plummet is laid in the Law...because it demonstrates the fulfillment of the garden (consummation of the Mind of Christ). It shows us HOW the Christ fulfilled the Law..and then expands on it from there.
In the thread, "You Can Be Righteous", I showed a little bit of this.

Got to go and will be online either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Bye all,
Rick

kathryn
12-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Hi Kathryn,

Another thing I have a problem with is this "precept upon precept" thing from Isa 28. You cast it into a negative light and I don't see it that way.

Doesn't everyone learn anything, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. Building blocks of education as it were.

Of course sometimes the Lord gives you revelation that explodes in your spirit and you can build up those blocks a bit faster.

And, did He not spend 3 years teaching precept upon precept to His disciples? Much of which came alive when they received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but still, the foundation had to be laid, right?

What is negative in these statements as a way of learning from the Lord? Maybe I am using the wrong phraseology. What is not desirable about the following statements?

Isa 28:9
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.

Isa 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 28:11
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isa 28:12
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Thanks for all your effort,
Rick

Hi Rick....Here is the 1st verse of Chapter 28 of Isaiah, which sets the whole tone or context for why they were given to learn "precept on precept":


Isa 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of ripening in scripture. The whole process of redemption is all written in type as a "garden". Scripture demonstrates that both iniquity and righteousness must ripen. We see it in the parable of the wheat and the tares. They are planted in the garden in seed form...and when they ripen and form "heads"...the tares are removed and burned, the wheat taken into the barn.

Ephraim is a type of that two-sided coin...which is first the TWO "men" of our nature...the carnal or old man...and the New Man (Christ within us). When the "heads" of the Baker and Butler are lifted up before the Feast of Pharoah could take place (as the serpent head and the Son of God "head" are lifted up ).....The NEW MAN...the CHRIST....the HEAD is now joined to His BODY. (and the Butler...cup bearer is restored to his ORIGINAL postion. (We are ONE in Him, He in us)

Ephraim, in this account..is the "double ash heap".(fully ripened!)..who has been subjected to the "vanity of his mind" (as stated in Romans)....and his "crown of pride" (vain imaginations/carnal mind)...is now sitting on the fat "valleys" . The "valley" in type...always refers to the "low places"...It is the Valley of the shadow of death(where we learn of His rod and staff)...the Valley of our Vision (meaning of name: Gehazi..Elisha's servant who was impotent to raise the "son..or "sterile" as the dual natured donkey or mixture . This is also the mixture of the written Logos and the Rhema. Until the donkey is fully redeemed by the Lamb (has his neck broken) it is barren.) They are overcome with the wine that confuses the mind..not the NEW wine.

However.we are promised BEAUTY FOR ASHES. Ephraim is: Ephraim/Joseph...who is the DOUBLE fruitfulness...the DOUBLE ANNOINTING...the DOUBLE or TWINNED CHRIST (Headstone and Capstone, Bridegroom and Bride, Joseph and Asenath...who become ONE when the OLD head/carnal mind...has been "lifted up" and its neck (as the DUAL-natured donkey) has been "broken". (so the TRUE HEAD can be joined to the Body) They represent the ONE animal who was cut in half...with the torch or light passed between them. THIS is the primary type of the process of the OLD Covenant becoming the NEW Covenant. The "One" (the Christ(plural) must be divided(as the light was first divided FROM the darkness)...in order for the "Light" to pass through and consummate them.

Joseph was given his new name...Treasury of the Glorious rest, at the same time he was given Asenath, his signet ring and his commissioning as SECOND in command over Egypt.

Joseph/Asenath are a type of the ONE Treasury. Jesus walked in this double annointing...which IS God's power BECAUSE it is the perfected unity of the DOUBLE WITNESS..OR THE TWO WITNESSES.

They are a type of the "signet ring" of God (as Zerubbabel) They are the type of Christ in His Corporate son/daughter..or bridegroom/bride etc...who together, are commissioned to rule and reign on earth. (the restored dominion of Adam in the SECOND Adam)

Asenath's name has a double meaning...describing the TWO works of Christ and the plural nature of the Christ. It means: I (Jesus) will be hated; SHE has stored up.

BOTH Jesus and Asenath CAME UP OUT OF EGYPT. This is ALL describing the AT-ONE-MENT...which is the RE-MEM-BER-ing of the ONE....and found in the Atonement sacrifice in the Law of Leviticus, with the TWO goats. One has to die...the second has the blood of the first, applied to its HEAD....and released LIVING into the wilderness. (I have called my Son out of Egypt). These are the TWO parts of ONE sacrifice. In the Song of Songs...we see the two coming out of the wilderness...Beloved leaning on her Lover.

kathryn
12-13-2011, 05:02 PM
The double witness is the FULL agreement (two eyes seeing as ONE in unity) of God's character, purposes and will . It is how Heaven and earth, Bridegroom and Bride bring the consummation or restoration of Creation. Their agreement or AT-ONE-MENT...drags or draws the "scarlet thread" of redemption, through Heaven , into Earth (matter) It is FULL AGREEMENT or consummation of SPIRIT, SOUL AND BODY.

As I mentioned on another post....we see people in the church ask others to "stand in agreement" with them, to heal someone....because that is what the word says to do.
However..until they come into FULL UNDERSTANDING in unity...of God's TRUE character, purposes and will...they will remain "sick and dying"

As long as they see God as a father who is capable of throwing his children in hell (when He set them up to fall!), or capable of only saving a remnant chosen few, or believing that He would call his kids an abomination because He created them homosexual or transexual.....we will remain sick and dying. BY HIS STRIPES WE HAVE BEEN HEALED...! And before the foundation of the world!

As long as there is ONE mindset remaining, that still blocks us from seeing HIM and His Gospel as GOOD NEWS AND NO BAD NEWS, we have no agreement with Him.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2011, 08:36 PM
Well..lets start with this. Have any of my conclusions about the foundation of the universe ...as PASSION, EXTRAVAGANT LOVE....PEACE AND GOODWILL AND REDEMPTION FOR ALL MEN AS ONE...caused you any problems, or discord in your heart/mind/spirit? Have any of the witnesses in Creation , or the Logos which I have provided...as they apply to those attributes of God, caused any discord?

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.



You saw the Elisha/hand on hand, this morning, yes? So...taking this back to mathematics....if you had reached the same conclusion as I, through the use of another formula...would you not then assume, that I had reached mine, in an equally valid manner?

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.



IF this is so....then this explains alot of the stuff that blocks our communication...which is the assumption that I'm seeing it through some la la, right brained approach with little logic...totally subjectively. Other than that....I don't know how much clearer I can get, about the Atonement Law...and those birds and goats. I did show you very clearly...how the bird is a type of 3 phases...the sparrow..the raven and the dove. Again..you never responded. So...what can I do with that? At some point..you need to stay with me to complete the forumula to bring it to it's conclusion. But...you have to see the 1+1 =2 , before we can go on to the expansion.
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 Rose) 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. 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 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38551#post38551) and #195 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38611#post38611) 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. If the person asks questions - like I usually 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 am lost in my "left brain" or the "dead Logos" or whatever, no progress will be made.

So here's 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 too 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
12-13-2011, 08:50 PM
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 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38551#post38551) and #195 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38611#post38611) 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
12-13-2011, 09:04 PM
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
12-13-2011, 10:09 PM
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! :winking0071:

debz
12-13-2011, 11:54 PM
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
12-14-2011, 12:04 AM
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
12-14-2011, 12:38 AM
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 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38551#post38551) and #195 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38611#post38611) 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: (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2499-The-meaning-of-Matt-17-27-(Coin-from-the-mouth-of-a-fish)&p=38631#post38631)
well..on that note...lets agree to disagree. :anim_32: and maybe have a pint or two:p

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
12-14-2011, 12:53 AM
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
12-14-2011, 01:09 AM
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
12-14-2011, 09:40 AM
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 :yo:

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) 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. [B]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.