| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BatKol |
Posted - 04 Jul 2004 : 16:59:15
One common thread that inner traditions of differing belief systems
converge on is the issue of free will being avaliable only to God. From Hassidic Judaism, Zen Bhuddism, Advaita Hinduism, Islamic Sufism and even Christianity. In this thread I hope to show where this concept agrees with statements from the Bible as well as provide an isolated forum to debate this topic.
For starters, one Christian perspective:
Concerning the Will: An historical and analytical essay examining Martin Luther's treatise 'The Bondage of the Will'
by Ken Ristau
http://www.quodlibet.net/ristau-luther.shtml
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BatKol |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 11:55:24
Dear Ishmael,
Peace and Blessings,
Steve
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 11:35:30
Dear Steve,
You said, "Are 'you' accepting that 'you' also are doing nothing meaningful with re-presentation REGARDLESS of the topic, REGARDLESS of 'your' opinion?"
My answer is a resounding, "Yes!!!", :).
God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| BatKol |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 08:25:31
quote:
Ishmael Aylwin said: Essentially, you will find no need to make any claim about the subject, because no claim about it can be meaningful.
No claim about 'the subject'? How about ANY subject if you really believe your own statement. 'You' said 'yourself' once one enters into the realm of words, you are dealing with the re-presentation. It matters not what topic or POV. Yet, words happen.quote:
Any claim you do make must presuppose a false separation.
Yes, any claim. Including your opinion of my take on the subject at hand or any topic, and vice-versa. Hence the fiction of a 'me' or 'you'. quote:
One with no other, means no words as well.
How so? Words are happening and they happening as YHWH's will... and we both agreed (?) all that exists is YHWH.... and everything is YHWH's will.quote:
Once you enter into the realm of words, you are dealing with the re-presentation. In this case I would argue that you can do nothing meaningful with re-presentation, except entertain yourself.
What about when 'you' enter into the realm of words? Are 'you' accepting that 'you' also are doing nothing meaningful with re-presentation REGARDLESS of the topic, REGARDLESS of 'your' opinion? Yet words happen, concepts get traded, ideas expounded upon.... all according to His good pleasure and purpose. Concerning your statement above about words, as I said originally, "Can't get there from here"...
Blessings back at 'ya!
Steve
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 01:17:28
Dear Steve,
A final attempt to "calibrate symantics."
The proper spelling of 'symantic' is semantic. I am not sure what you're first
language is, so I thought I would risk correcting you.
I have quoted my first message on this thread below. It will have to stand as
the evidence that I was not taking any postion seriously. I quite clearly
expressed that I did not think there was any grounds for a rational discussion
on the topic.
I am happy that you feel we agree. I will concur that you get the ideas, but
if asked I would claim that you do not get the substance. For example, when
you claim, "Or He chooses everything because only "He" is Real." You seem to
have forgotten that if there is only Unity, YHVH, than there is nothing for Him
to choose, because there is no separation. Essentially, you will find no need
to make any claim about the subject, because no claim about it can be meaningful.
Any claim you do make must presuppose a false separation. One with no other,
means no words as well. Once you enter into the realm of words, you are dealing
with the re-presentation. In this case I would argue that you can do nothing
meaningful with re-presentation, except entertain yourself.
God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
quote:
Originally posted by iammai
Hello Robert-James,quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James
Then again, who is "God"?
Yes, I think that is it exactly. To bring it a little closer to home:quote:
Then again, who am "I" ?
If we haven't truly answered that question with confidence, what does it mean to speak of free will?
Batkol, please don't take my comment as derisive. It is only that I have loved these topics too much, and ultimately I personaly found myself stuck on the question above. One could easily use being stuck there to support an argument of only God havingfree will, but how meaningful is it?
It is like the qeustions people were asking after the movie "The Matrix" came out. How do we know we're not in a matrix in our lives now? Although we can entertain ourselves with the question, and I love to entertain myself, at least I am never bored, there is no meaningful answer.
At the same time, I am looking forward to the links, and perspectives you, Batkol, offer to share with us. I am confident I will find them all appealing. It was reading the __Gospel of Thomas__, that brought this prodigal son, back into the fold of Redeemer.
Who am I? It is this question that led me to understand what faith really was about. Even the atheists have fatih. They just may not have been paying enough attention to notice. I agree with Descarte's, "Cogito ergo sum." But, everything after that is fallacious. Rationally, without positing useful assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless, we can only know we exist. The rest is a house we build on a foundation with nothing to support it but the faith we have that we really know what we mean when we say, "I".
I AM,
IAM ;) (Ishmaely Aylwin [McIntosh])
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 20:41:02
Greetings,quote:
Ishmael said:I am sorry I have not expressed myself clearly enough. My rebuttal to you is that your question of free will makes assumptions that can not be proven, and hence any discusion on the topic is meaningless, except for entertainment purposes.
Which assumptions exactly? As for whether or not this post is entertaining or all-important.. is irrelevant. It is happening.quote:
If you re-read my previous messages in the thread, that may become clearer. With that in mind, I will acknowledge that my 'answer', which was intended as a joke to disagree with you, may not have made the joke clear enough to be understood. Forgive me for that.
Unfortunately, communication via the internet lacks certain elements which make clarity an issue that needs to be established in advance
'else we go round and round. One concept may mean something to you, while the same concept, with different word-values, means something different to me.quote:
To get into what I find to be the interesting part of your question I will respond to:
quote:
---------------------------------
As for free will, if YHWH is the only One who is omnipotent and omnipresent, 'who' is there to have free will? Do you consider the ever-changing thoughts and moods, likes and dislikes
inside these clay pots to be 'our' identity?
---------------------------------
I couldn't agree with you more here. Yet when you write it, and present it as you have it would appear that you have not had the "unified realization" that you speak of.
Find the 'me' or 'you' that exists in real terms to even have the experience. The point is, there is no 'you' or 'me' when unity happens, while at the same time thoughts arise, sleep happens, dinner gets cooked, the plumber gets yelled at for ruining a job, etc...'My' post on this topic moves on the ground that this collection of experiences, opinions, likes and dislikes, changing moods, what-not, is not 'real' in the sense of the word... yet posts happen, bills get paid, children get fed, opinions get pondered.. quote:
If you have, than you have forgotten for much of this thread, because your writing is almost always acting as if there is a separation between Him and His Creation, when there is not.
Then forgive me for not making myself clearer. When I say that there is no Free Will for the "me's" and "you's", the meaning is only YHWH has Free Will, hence no seperation since "you" and "me" exist for His purpose. "His, "He", "YHWH" only being a symantic device for the purpose of a conversation happening.quote:
For example you wrote:
quote:
------------------------------
If by the grace of YHWH one is 'chosen'
------------------------------
There is nothing but YHWH, he chooses nothing.
Or He chooses everything because only "He" is Real. Unfortunatly, symantics will present a problem here. Seeing that limitation for what it is worth, is worth the whole thread.quote:
If you believe he does anything in the way that you do as a man with an ego think you do something, than you have not truly perceived His Unity.
I did not say "He" does anything like a man with an ego. The man is not capable of doing anything... "he" gets done. Clay pot.quote:
It is only an idea to you. Hence my comment in my previous message, "However, those made most in His image, often get confused through language into believing they have no Free Will, because they can't distinguish between their ideas [re-presentations] and their experiences, ;)."
How can there be any individual ideas and experiences apart from what is willed by the only One which has Sovereignty? Again, we are into symantics here, but an image is not the Real thing. So, yes the 'you and 'me' are an image. An image 'doing' nothing of 'it's' own free will but rather being done.quote:
If one must use the idea of "choosing" or any manner of expression that indicates any separation from the Unity, in reference to Him, than it can only be as his "I" acts through a part.
Again, I am not presupposing a seperation just because a phraseology was used. YHWH's unity does not depend on whether or not one of His "images" uses a certain phrase (He wills it anyway)... The "I" gets acted through the part no matter if it is a murder or a saint. YHWH is the only doer and the only Real. But here 'we' are being danced with symantics.quote:
Hence, my claim that He is omnipresent, and all His separate parts experience free will.
Yes, experiences His free will. I think you agree here?quote:
Your own ability to think, that free will does not exist, is the proof that at some level it does.
Not if the model is used that the "me" or "you" has no seperate ability.quote:
Of course, that is only a relative statement to take a position in a nonsensical argument. (And, one taken for entertainment purposes, because you have so seriously taken the other side.)
LOL. Does not your statement "the other side" show that you yourself have a position that you are taking seriously enough to make the effort of explaining? The irony here is we are both arguing the same point but from opposite angles. A valuable feature for those paying attention.. BTW, what gauge are you using to measure my level of seriousness ;-)? quote:
Another way to try and express this very important point, is that if you think when you say "I" that the true "I" it refers to is other than the single "I" that is His than you have not genuinly perceived Unity.
You are using different words to express the same concept that I was putting forth. This is the same as saying that "I" do not exist because only YHWH exists, hence "I" cannot do anything that is not "His" will. Clay pot, some made for honor, some for dishonor, but all made, if you will, for His purpose.quote:
Unity implies One with no other, so "your" will and His will are the same at all times. However, it is easy to confuse your representation of reality with reality, and while you are stuck in historicism or futurism, think that your will has not been realized.
Again we agree but with each using different words and angles.quote:
It is always a challenge to speak about the ineffable
This alone may be the usefulness of this exchange. Agree 100%.quote:
If I have not made myself clearer this time, I will have to give up, unless specifically requested for clarification. As I wrote earlier, this kind of topic fascinates me, and the surface level of it now quickly bores me. I hope I have had better success in sharing my view in this message.
It is needfull to calibrate symantics.quote:
Thank you for the blessings. Sincere Blessings, Ishmael Aylwin
You are most welcome.... thanks for the stroll down symantics lane. Enjoyed it!
Layla Tov,
Steve Webb
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 14:31:03
Dear Steve,
I am sorry I have not expressed myself clearly enough. My rebuttal to you is that your question of free will makes assumptions that can not be proven, and hence any discusion on the topic is meaningless, except for entertainment purposes. If you re-read my previous messages in the thread, that may become clearer. With that in mind, I will acknowledge that my 'answer', which was intended as a joke to disagree with you, may not have made the joke clear enough to be understood. Forgive me for that.
To get into what I find to be the interesting part of your question I will respond to:quote:
As for free will, if YHWH is the only One who is omnipotent and omnipresent, 'who' is there to have free will? Do you consider the ever-changing thoughts and moods, likes and dislikes
inside these clay pots to be 'our' identity?
I couldn't agree with you more here. Yet when you write it, and present it as you have it would appear that you have not had the "unified realization" that you speak of. If you have, than you have forgotten for much of this thread, because your writing is almost always acting as if there is a separation between Him and His Creation, when there is not. For example you wrote:quote:
If by the grace of YHWH one is 'chosen'
There is nothing but YHWH, he chooses nothing. If you believe he does anything in the way that you do as a man with an ego think you do something, than you have not truly perceived His Unity. It is only an idea to you. Hence my comment in my previous message, "However, those made most in His image, often get confused through language into believing they have no Free Will, because they can't distinguish between their ideas [re-presentations] and their experiences, ;)."
If one must use the idea of "choosing" or any manner of expression that indicates any separation from the Unity, in reference to Him, than it can only be as his "I" acts through a part. Hence, my claim that He is omnipresent, and all His separate parts experience free will. Your own ability to think, that free will does not exist, is the proof that at some level it does. Of course, that is only a relative statement to take a position in a nonsensical argument. (And, one taken for entertainment purposes, because you have so seriously taken the other side.)
Another way to try and express this very important point, is that if you think when you say "I" that the true "I" it refers to is other than the single "I" that is His than you have not genuinly perceived Unity. Unity implies One with no other, so "your" will and His will are the same at all times. However, it is easy to confuse your representation of reality with reality, and while you are stuck in historicism or futurism, think that your will has not been realized.
It is always a challenge to speak about the ineffable. If I have not made myself clearer this time, I will have to give up, unless specifically requested for clarification. As I wrote earlier, this kind of topic fascinates me, and the surface level of it now quickly bores me. I hope I have had better success in sharing my view in this message.
Thank you for the blessings.
Sincere Blessings,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| BatKol |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 08:56:00
Ishmael Alywin said: personally have found that the most cogent comprehension of what is meant by the use of the word "I", simultaneously includes God and the personal. The two are in fact not distinct, and they can not be. And if you consider them so, than you can not believe that God is omnipresent. And, if you believe in His omnipresence, than there is no way he is not also omniscient and omnipotent.....
Steve: Maybe we should dial in here for clarity. Since all things are created and scripted by YHWH, yes, the "I" is also planned by and expedited by Him for His purpose.. Good "I's", bad "I's" all following their pre-determined script. Many going through life thinking 'they' are the doers, with the idea that they are a seperate entity. If by the grace of YHWH one is 'chosen' by Him to have a unified realization, then it happens because YHWH is the only Sovereign and it is part of His plan. This is what I was saying. As for free will, if YHWH is the only One who is omnipotent and omnipresent, 'who' is there to have free will? Do you consider the ever-changing thoughts and moods, likes and dislikes inside these clay pots to be 'our' identity?
Ishmael said: It seems you are less interested in genuine philosophical discussion and more interested in foils to use to make your presentation for a POV you have already decided is correct. Yet,
you have not examined the fallaciousness of your premises.
Steve: I could say the exact same thing about you not agreeing with my POV but what would be the point, given my response above. You have not rebuted the specific points I made in my post, so your claim of the 'fallaciousness of my premises' is a bit premature. We can agree to disagree... after all it would be YHWH's will either way.
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21).”
Take care and blessings back to you, Ishmael
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 03:31:11
Dear Steve,
I have taken some time to respond, because I wanted to try and have something
worth saying to share. I am now somewhat side tracked by your take on Free Will
vs God's Will. I also think you missed some of my point of above in quoting Yehoshua
from __The Gospel of Thomas__. My real point is that discussion on the topic is
meaningless, because the seeming opposites are fallacious and dependent on unprovable
assumptions that you have about what you mean when you say, "I". I personally have
found that the most cogent comprehension of what is meant by the use of the word "I",
simultaneously includes God and the personal. The two are in fact not distinct, and
they can not be. And if you consider them so, than you can not believe that God is
omnipresent. And, if you believe in His omnipresence, than there is no way he is not
also omniscient and omnipotent. That the fullness of the recoginition of His truth
can not be captured for re-presentation in the mind is entirely independent of the issue
of free will.
As for the kingdom of heaven only being within, I have to disagree with you. Yehoshua
also said, " the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
I will acknowledge that one must find it inside to see it outside, but nonetheless it is
without as well as within.
It seems you are less interested in genuine philosophical discussion and more interested in
foils to use to make your presentation for a POV you have already decided is correct. Yet,
you have not examined the fallaciousness of your premises. So, I will answer your original
question as follows, and be done with the topic.
"Free will ?" Absolutely! To quote Steve, "differing belief systems converge on [...] the issue
of free will being avaliable only to God." However, it should also be recognized that God is
omnipresent, and therefore within every separate thing that can be discerned in Creation.
Therefore, each separate thing participates in His Free Will, each of them perceiving it as
their own. However, those made most in His image, often get confused through language into
believing they have no Free Will, because they can't distinguish between their ideas, and their
experiences, ;).
That's the end of conversation for me, unless you, or someone, can show more than having taken
a position to defend or proselytize.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| BatKol |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 21:54:10
Robert-James said: then again Yahushuah stopped all their mouth's.
He was the first to admit that He and YHWH were One.
Steve: Nope. He was one of many who came before him that 'figured this out'. The Magi knew where to find him and when... hmmmmm
Robert-james said: the JEWS wanted, and plotted to kill Him. Hmmm, why? What was so upsetting to the Jew's?
Steve: From my many hours of studies, I'd say the answer is: "potential loss of franchise"
Robert-James: Echad...BatKol studies ancient hebrew more than me...echad, means...Unity? I think so.
Steve: All, Everything....i.e. One
Robert-James: I can never believe that the Most High Creator of the universe is has any competition.
Steve: None at all. YHWH created every move we have ever made... for better or for worse.
Robert-James: Why did David choose to go against GOLIATH? Or, was he a programmed robot?
Steve: A sentient being programmed through conditioning both 'past' and in-the-moment, to do YHWH's predestined will.
Robert-James: Now, just who want's to get pregnant?
Steve: our wants have nothing to do with the 'birth', it's all YHWH as He is the only doer.
Only by His grace.... guess what... can't earn 'it'...
Robert-James: Through much travail shall ye enter into the Kingdom.
Steve: Flesh and blood cannot enter in.... so much for that "israelite glory'. The kingdom is neither here nor there, it's inside. Some travail at the idea of having absolutely no free will.... it would mean the 'death of them'. No mother, no father, no beginning, no end, no male, no female.... How does this fit into your 'american kingdom' Robert-James?
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 19:52:00
Greetings Brethern,
then again Yahushuah stopped all their mouth's.
He was the first to admit that He and YHWH were One.
"Phillip, have I been with you this long, and you still want to see the "Father"? Is. 9:6.
YHWH was so proud of His Firstborn, "his button's busted".
"He got 'it'" And from this pattern son, I will make My Family.
Just call me a beliver.
And from that time foreward the JEWS wanted, and plotted to kill Him. Hmmm, why? What was so upsetting to the Jew's?
Echad...BatKol studies ancient hebrew more than me...echad, means...Unity? I think so.
I can never believe that the Most High Creator of the universe is has any competition. But, and, He surely got a charge out of little David taking on the power's of this WORLD.
Why did David choose to go against GOLIATH? Or, was he a programmed robot?
The first defination of the word "ejaculate" according to Oxford's Encyclopedic English Dictionary, reprinted '1991' is...utter suddenly [words especially of prayer or other emotions}.
Peter "ejaculated" when he uttered, "thou are the Son of Yahuweh, the Messiah".
Now, just who want's to get pregnant? Or are you already, and awaiting the delivery of the promised seed?
Women, ask them, alway's sweat the delivery. {No kidding}
Through much travail shall ye enter into the Kingdom.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 25 Jul 2004 : 13:44:41
Ishmael Aylwin thanks for your keen obeservations. You said: What has occured in the human mind is a re-presentation, or shadow, of experience. What is most true, the unity, is not experienced by the five senses, and can not be re-presented in the mind.
BK: Yes. "Can't get there from here", just like one cannot wrap their arms around themselves and lift their own body off the ground. Flesh cannot enter in to a Kingdom that no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
Paul's description of Melchezidek fits perfectly with the Gospel of Thomas.
Ishmael Aylwin said: This leads us back towards David Merrill's insights on Capital Integration. That may be something to ponder.
BK: Let's. David brings some interesting elements that I'd like to see factored into the topic.
What is your take on the connection?
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 16:12:45
Hello Batkol,
"We", presumes "I", and at least one other who uses the term "I".
Hence the import of my question. All POVs, assume "I" yet none can
rationally define it. YHVH, is a name. It is used to denote an aspect
of the one thing that is. If you acknowledge only the unity, than
the name has no value or meaning. Batkol, is a name, it is used to
denote a different aspect of the one thing than YHWH. If you are
aware of the truth of the unity, than you are not attached to the
name for its denotation. You may be interested in it for its dynamic
creative potential, though. That however is a whole different thread,
one for which I have too little immediate experience to wax poetic on.
From __The Gospel of Thomas__:
quote:
Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard
and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
What has occured in the human mind is a re-presentation, or shadow, of experience.
What is most true, the unity, is not experienced by the five senses, and can not
be re-presented in the mind.
It just occured to me, and I remember thinking of this is as a child. If God really
is omnipresent than "I" am God, too. I comprehend that now in a way I did not then.
There is only one "I" with many manifestations, and many names to denote its different
aspects. No single name can possibly represent the whole. This leads us back towards
David Merrill's insights on Capital Integration. That may be something to ponder.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| BatKol |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 21:03:18
quote:
Ishmaely Aylwin: Then again, who am "I" ?
If we haven't truly answered that question with
confidence, what does it mean to speak of free will?
BK: I might just ask, if "we" are looking from a New Testament POV,
"who" is left to answer when in Truth, as Paul and Christ say, there is no mother, no father, no male, no female, no beginning, no end? YHWH is the only Sovereign and does all of the picking and choosing according to His good pleasure. He creates the good and the evil, yea, even the evil man for his day. If He declares everything before "it happens" how can we say "we" have free will (we, who's life is but a vapor)? Only YHWH has Free Will...Can the pot say to the creator "why have you made me thus?" YHWH makes one for honor and one for dishonor. It is only by YHWH's grace that He chooses some for a great part in His play... and regardless "we" are told to rejoice for the good and the bad... Wow... He is omniscient, omnipresent.. There is no-thing Real but YHWH.. all else is Matrix.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| iammai |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 20:12:00
Hello Robert-James,quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James
Then again, who is "God"?
Yes, I think that is it exactly. To bring it a little closer to home:quote:
Then again, who am "I" ?
If we haven't truly answered that question with confidence, what does it mean to speak of free will?
Batkol, please don't take my comment as derisive. It is only that I have loved these topics too much, and ultimately I personaly found myself stuck on the question above. One could easily use being stuck there to support an argument of only God havingfree will, but how meaningful is it?
It is like the qeustions people were asking after the movie "The Matrix" came out. How do we know we're not in a matrix in our lives now? Although we can entertain ourselves with the question, and I love to entertain myself, at least I am never bored, there is no meaningful answer.
At the same time, I am looking forward to the links, and perspectives you, Batkol, offer to share with us. I am confident I will find them all appealing. It was reading the __Gospel of Thomas__, that brought this prodigal son, back into the fold of Redeemer.
Who am I? It is this question that led me to understand what faith really was about. Even the atheists have fatih. They just may not have been paying enough attention to notice. I agree with Descarte's, "Cogito ergo sum." But, everything after that is fallacious. Rationally, without positing useful assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless, we can only know we exist. The rest is a house we build on a foundation with nothing to support it but the faith we have that we really know what we mean when we say, "I".
I AM,
IAM ;) (Ishmaely Aylwin [McIntosh])
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
| BatKol |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:53:24
Here is the Christzen perspective:
THE CIRCLE OF THE WAY: READING THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS AS A CHRISTZEN TEXT,
by Kenneth Arnold
"When Jesus opens his mouth in the Gospel of Thomas, there is a Buddha sitting on his tongue."
http://www.crosscurrents.org/arnoldwinter2002.htm
Stay posted for the Hassidic and Sufi concepts which say the same thing.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| BatKol |
Posted - 11 Jul 2004 : 22:12:00
Note that the Luther's doctrine of free will only for the Creator was around for thousands of years prior. Paul's version of Melchezidek was also a late-commer.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 10 Jul 2004 : 21:03:09
Then again, who is "God"?
BTW, Martin Luther, a liberator of sort's, and thankyou Luther, yet, nevertheless, Luther isued ORDER'S to hunt and kill those who do not agree with OUR {read his} doctrine of baptism in water, and communion. And from this, Rome built thereunification of the {P}rotestant bodies.
Also, Martin Luther's treatise on 'Roman's 13th chapter is worthy of note. Five down, two to go. |
|
|
