And this is why You are wrong, because like biggy, You think not out of the box , that is meant For IT
That there are those, who think out of the box like this, undetermined to freely disconnect the link that matters most, by a double edged battle ax as it were.
Less we forget that redemption was an exclusion of the in it’s self by it’s self. Amappetently through it’s self , a will full act
as merely an alternate ‘shadow’ theory turned image
That there are those, who think out of the box like this, undetermined to freely disconnect the link that matters most, by a double edged battle ax as it were.
Less we forget that redemption was an exclusion of the in it’s self by it’s self. Amappetently through it’s self , a will full act
as merely an alternate ‘shadow’ theory turned image[/quote
A theory which defies the originally meant image of progressive , objective evolution , destroying Diogenes distinctive ‘ladder to heaven’ knocking out all objective rationale for the steps necessary even sans it’s Absolute behind the redemption, .
In fact, the guy made a contingent necessity out of an apperant necessary contingency.
That is the very thin margin of doubt which underlines the internal and external domains professed to hinge the most complex and subtle simplicity ever begot .
Still in doubt?
From the link: “ None of this makes sense to me. My alternative theory, which is mine, is that the crucifixion, if it happened, was a big failure because Jesus’s followers (if he existed) all thought that he would bring them salvation in their lifetime, and didn’t expect the Messiah to be executed. But, as the story goes, he was, and the corpse rotted or disappeared. Therefore the story of the resurrection was invented to try to convince the disappointed masses that, like Jesus, they too would have eternal life, since obviously the messiah wasn’t going to come during their lifetimes, as he promised he would.”
Granted they all thought Jesus would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression—to the point Judas got miffed enough to try and instigate a conflict—
…how would that explain 1) the empty tomb… even if it were merely a lie, and 2) the persistence of the disciples to go and make disciples, and 3) the conversion of skeptics (during Jesus’ life) only AFTER Jesus’ death?
Just a start.
Doubt your doubts.
Are you going to multiply stuff like that? Have you not read my prior suggested stuff?
Of course , have read it, but playing devil,s advocate is no mere mean sleight of hand, it’s persistence is overwhelming
What do you mean by that?
Removed for reasons other than……
Shadowy or persistent, it is in God’s hands.
The sun is just a metaphor.
God’s light casts no shadow.
True but for appearance of shade, the resultant blindness caused by the irony of an allusion that non but those directly affected by anything but certain experience through the miracle of apprehending the sun, could make that absolute inference.
The reason why the game has to replay as many times as alluded to, is the compelling persistence by which the shade challenges the light behind it, fully certain of it’s own fallibility by those directly witness if His appearance.
Maybe the light is challenging the fallible (who among the willing isn’t fallible, but the light?) to let it temper them to become stronger swords? Stronger to lift others from the mud when ready, or welcome them home?
Maybe the shade, or the cave, is muddy indulgence, an eventually wearying respite even for the most prodigal?
It appears, as if this exemplifies a secondary derivative of the interaction above described.
What grabs me is the very seemless analogy between the attainment of ‘egolessness’ as an example of modal logic that is appearent between bot Christ, and those who have been chosen to follow in His footsteps.
It is an unbelievable painful experience, and has very little to do with the personal will to choose.
Especially for Judas. The painful part.
We always have a choice.
“Not my will, but yours”