Admitting You're a Sinner

[Haipule]

As I already said, "Sin is whatever you say it means and to as many people whom are dumb enough to listen to you".

-and I can't imagine anyone who would be dumb enough to listen to you, when you share your opinion on sin.
"Sin"? parabasis: motion against a fixed point or standard. paraptOma: to cross a line so as to fall viewed from it's state or effect. hamartia: off course. All those words have to do with where we are going and are translated into nothingness by the word "sin".

Where did you get that shit: from the clergy?  You know their all totally whack right?

That may be, but that doesn't prevent a person from identifying and accurately communicating what it is they are talking about.  Many absurd things, at least, have an internal logic.  As an example;

A person who believes that aliens routinely visit this planet might also believe that the government is engaged in a massive cover up.  This could account for the relative lack of concrete evidence of alien visitations - chiefly in that as soon as some saucer hits the dirt it gets swarmed by un-marked helicopters and teams in hazmats suits scrubbing the area and whisking the craft off to an undisclosed black site.  This is an absurd belief, it's entirely untrue..but's internally consistent and very specific. Aliens, helicopters, black sites, ergo cover-up.   

So, too..is the notion of religious taboo or sin and it's attendant apparatus.  If there -were- a sin setting entity or force and it -did- have a shitlist and it -could- effect retribution upon transgressors then it -would- be an issue of grave concern.  To say that the entirety of normative religious beliefs fundamentally hinges upon this idea is to understate the reality of the matter.  Not only is it foundational..religious narratives serve no other purpose but as an exposition on that internally logical..if ultimately absurd, belief.  They are morality plays in which taboo subs in for ethics.  They are parables which seek to expand upon the consequence of taboo and how a person may, if they commit taboo, discharge their responsibility for the offense of having done so.  

Yes, they sometimes present an origin story, but this is a just so story.  A trivial prelude to the meat of the narrative..generally put forward only as it relates to the authority of the taboo setting force or entity and mans relationship to it.  Magic book..for example..gets the entirety of the history of the universe up to the fall of man out of the way breathleesly, in no more than a few paragraphs, sparse of any specific detail that might provide a compelling and true account of our origins.  It only exists to set the stage for the first disagreement between man and the divine. To assert that there is sin,  that we are sinful, and that because of this there will be consequences.

They may even reference something overtly absurd as a way, by metaphor, of establishing the theological truth which the narrative is meant to convey.  These, we commonly call "miracles".  Jumping forward in magic book to one of the most illustrative examples...consider the loaves and the fishes.  Are we to believe that this is a news report from galillean shorefront...wherein a magic man made the absurd a reality, splitting a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish to the point where it could feed a multiude?  Or is this..instead, an exposition of the ability of magic mans theology to satisfy many with very little?  Of being a redemptive chalice which is not only running over...but which cannot be drained no matter how many drink from it?  

It may be apropos of nothing, in reality, but it is an exploration of the notion that the offer being made is for everyone, and is unlimited.   That no matter how many people cleanse themselves of the responsibility of their taboos there will always be some left for the next guy.  That the story, as told...and even as a belief is absurd is not, in any way, a criticism of it's internal logic, and so..saying "yeah, but those priests who wrote that shit were batshit crazy" is true, but wholly unimportant when discussing the meaning of the beliefs or narrative.  Batshit crazy clergy wrote the entirety of magic book, so what..it still says what it says, it still has an intelligible meaning.

But tell me more about lefties and how you're great a reading greek and that this makes you, somehow, an authority...compared to some -other- nutter...or in fact an authority over all other nutters who..in two thousand years, have never been so inconsistent or downright stupid as to imply or state that sin is a non-entity, rather than central to the new testament narrative.  You could float, and I could accept...that it doesn;t mean much to you and your nutter beliefs...but you do not have the ability to excise it from the narrative by fiat of having banished it from whatever passes for a mind with you.

"Miracle" is another bad word. The Greek word means: a display of power. No display of power can be outside the realm of the nature He established. Just because we can't understand it as natural doesn't mean that it isn't natural.

God also in not a "Creator" and this is not a creation. What you see is an awesome display of His authority and power to command that stuff exists from stuff specifically vacuum mechanics. God is the MAKER. The Latin idea of ex nilio is stupid!

You guy's have some goofy ideas about my Father.

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep talking about this stuff like it's anything more than a story.  It's tedious.  Here, let me help you, the problem with miracles isn't that we don't understand that they're "natural", it's that they don't happen, full stop.

[Haipule]

You also talked about the "central theme" of the NT. Dude! The central theme is about Yeshua(modern English: Joshua), Greek: iEsous, Latin: iesus, English: Jesus.

John 1 says that the Word and God are one and the same which Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. God became a man so that He could die on that cross because all man, through the parabasis of Adam which made all man paraptOma and hamartia, was held hostage and a ransom was established. That ransom was paid purchased by that death so that man could be free. The rest of the "magic book" is about living in that freedom.

That death covered the hamartia of man and man was declared as right. Because of the rightification of man Jesus no longer had to be dead and raised the third day. 

It's a real simple story in the Greek that man has confused into rocket science for the last 2,000yrs.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, the central theme of the NT is christ...not jesus.  Jesus is just some schmuck, christ is a redemptive figure. Random schmucks named jesus can't wash away sin. You should know the difference, being an expert and all.

[The Valkyrie]

I admit I should have had dinner.

That's pretty much the same thing, right?

[Cyberman]

You guy's have some goofy ideas about my Father.

I'm not sure we can trust your ability to recognise goofy ideas.

[Haipule]

No, the central theme of the NT is christ...not jesus.  Jesus is just some schmuck, christ is a redemptive figure.  Random schmucks named jesus can't wash away sin.  You should know the difference, being an expert and all.

Your just digging a hole! Quit while your behind!

As I said, Yeshua is Joshua. In the OT there is another Joshua. In the NT Greek, both names are spelled the same: iEsous. So, we need an adjective so we do not confuse them. That adjective is christos transliterated, and not translated, as "Christ". christos means: anointed.

christos iEsous is an attributive adjective. iEsous christos is a predicate adjective. christos alone is a substantive adjective used appellatively: Anointed-One.

mashiyach, translated into English, is from the Greek transliterated word Messiah, in the OT is also an adjective and also means anointed. Figuratively, to be anointed is to be given a purpose and a destiny.

Most unfortunately, the translators translate it as a noun, so whenever they see the adjective christos, always transliterate it into nothingness and give it a capital "C". In doing so, completely masks the teaching that we as sheep are also anointed with an anointing, destiny and purpose.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your just digging a hole! Quit while your behind!

As I said, Yeshua is Joshua. In the OT there is another Joshua. In the NT Greek, both names are spelled the same: iEsous. So, we need an adjective so we do not confuse them. 

That;s it..... christ is just an adjective, to distinguish two people with the same name.  Like me and my brother, you know.  I'm T the Elder, he's T the Younger.  Christ is like that, my dipshit little brother..wouldn't want people confusing us for each other.

[Haipule]

Your just digging a hole! Quit while your behind!

As I said, Yeshua is Joshua. In the OT there is another Joshua. In the NT Greek, both names are spelled the same: iEsous. So, we need an adjective so we do not confuse them. 

That;s it..... christ is just an adjective, to distinguish two people with the same name.  Like me and my brother, you know.  I'm T the Elder, he's T the Younger.  Christ is like that, my dipshit little brother..wouldn't want people confusing us for each other.

This is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl!

When I first questioned it, I saw some lexicons say it's a noun like http://www.scripture4all.org and others an adjective like http://www.blueletterbible.org. So I went to the OT and found mashiyach and called up the Jewish Cultural Center in Palm Beach County Florida and asked them if it was a noun or an adjective. They said it is an adjective and means anointed. BINGO!

I then went and looked at every occurrence and could plainly see that it is used as an adjective. If it walks like a duck...

One funny thing is that there is another iEsous in the bible they translated as Jose! I don't think he was anointed

[The Grand Nudger]

The NT is not jewish. They;re still waitin...and not for no reason. You don't think "Jose" was anointed just like I don't think you are. So, as we initially began, we return to the fact that it doesn;t matter what a word once meant in the face of what it now means or how it is being used. I don;t think that a shamanka is one who burns, or a person connected to the living spirit of the earth. When I use the word, I mean an idiot capable of conning even bigger idiots. Similarly, when christians used the word christ they meant something entirely un-jewish. A god man.