Refugee

February 13, 2005

Revisiting aspects of the JimBob7’s Z thread at Bible, Theology and Related items,

specifically, as it referenced the sanctuary.

Might not error obtain? --to assume the sanctuary spoken of in

Daniel 8:13 …both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? v14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

is a sanctuary, four-square, such as the earthly Tabernacle/Temple that facilitated the propitiative ordinances of the OT COI, or that it is the Type in heavenly places… If it were so, how then might one exposit the following…?

Eze 37:26 …will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. v27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

tabernacle? sanctuary? Hebraic parallelism -- a redundancy? or, two houses of worship? or perhaps, one house of worship (or abode?) and one metaphor? Maybe, the following helps…

Psa 114:2 Judah was his sanctuary, [and] Israel his dominion.

Is it possible the sanctuary spoken of in Daniel 8 is Judah? That the cleansing is of Judah? but then, whatever for?

jasd

February 14, 2005

LynnDel

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

1982-3? That's interesting. Never heard that before. Which Writ suggests that?

Nicodema

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Why have you chosen THAT TIME PERIOD???? Why 1982-1983?????????

One begins to notice that upon a reflection of what I post; at no time do I purport my authority, I have none. My intent is simply to vigorously dialog Bible in aspects other than that handed down from the heights of Mount Scholarly Assertions, or from that of such as BRI or other (that is, non-SDA denominational .Org equivalents…) or, from whatever ‘source’ presently held beliefs derive --of any .Org. They may have individual biases or claims of authority that could wrongfully influence their tablets of dispensation and which, in turn, --could get a fella shibbolethin’ on the wrong side of the equation. [/grinnin’] The raison d’être being,

the warrior ought fill his quiver selectively, discarding the untrue shaft, the imprecise barb, and the improperly fletched; --his continuing sublimity dependant upon his choices. One’s own death is a very personal thing. [/say what!] So,

dispensing with qualifiers, what I believe per 1982-3, is actually quite pedestrian,

1982-3 is a constructive.

The construct is built primarily upon a principle the Biblical SDA subscribes to, that is, the day/year principle, together with the opinion of the Rabbinate, and that, which is…

“--the saying is hard and thou couldst not bear it; therefor, it is not given for me to say; howbeit, the times shall come when all things, whether they be hidden, whether they be in darkness, or whether they be naught of these, shall be revealed.” (jasd 12:12) [/ouch!]

For now, I’ll contribute a precept, if you will, --following:

“Our revels now are ended.

These our actors,

As I foretold you, were all spirits, and

Are melted into air, into thin air.” –Prospero, The Tempest

A play, a controversy as well, must have its protagonists. In the immediate case they are --Jerusalem and Babylon, ‘spiritual’, or otherwise, --together with us, you and I. For the play/controversy to unfold, the principals/actors must first, be identifiable, second, they must either be on mark, on stage, or --as we, in the wings. Though presently awaiting our cues, we are [soon, expectantly] to comprise a part of the milieu, the mise en scène, if you will, of the Final Act, final scene --with curtain descending, Fin: and, the melting away… The question is,

will we be on our marks and cues?

jasd

February 14, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I believe Writ suggests an ‘end time’ having its beginning per se, at or approximating 1982-3 AD.

One must remember that my 'end time' does not necessarily have to coincide with that, which the disciples of Jesus seemed to take as 'end time' being some millennia past, nor does it necessarily follow that it must coincide with that, which is commonly known as the advent movement.

An exposition on the matter of End Time per se, would undoubtedly require more than this thread would sustain.

Should my thema have no similitude to Writ, I will undoubtedly be refuted. If not, I suppose it'll stand.

jasd

February 14, 2005

I wonder what Bible references are used for the 1982-83 date. Did you say? I might've missed 'em in my perusal.

I did do a minor googling and found Hal Lindsay's reference to 1982 where he said the end times were to begin in 1982 due to the Jupiter Effect - the alignment of the planets that were to cause tremendous earthquakes, a theory apparently not now believed by many.

Awaiting further scriptural enlightenment,

LD

February 16, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

1982-3 is a constructive.

The construct is built primarily upon a principle the Biblical SDA subscribes to, that is, the day/year principle,

Daniel and Revelation might bear another look, especially in that much of what is held by numbers of peoples to be unassailable --is that, which Uriah Smith developed anticipating Gd, that is, --that, which he developed was done ‘having run, not been sent’, per my preceding arguments, --if correct.

Several things, Re “times”:

Has or has not certain interpretations of prophecy, as concurred-to by the .Org, been built upon the day/year principle? is there foundation for them? and if the day/year principle is utilized, why is it not utilized in its entirety? Namely, why aren’t Levitical texts of chapter 26 also (or more completely) incorporated into the day/year expositions of Daniel? That is,

Lev 26:18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

Lev 26:21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

Re: ‘seven times more’ in the two texts above…

Is that a quantitative use of more? or is it an adverbial more? --meaning a temporal inflected continuance of ‘seven times’, rather than, a quantitative addition of that, which precedes? I believe the third and fourth utilization by Gd of ‘seven times’ in this chapter, --clarifies it.

Lev 26:24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.

Lev 26:28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

(Despite verses 34, 35, this chapter is not topically synoptic with the Jeremiad, or Ezekiel’s, ‘land-rest’ warnings of desolations per se. It is a paraphrastic inclusion.)

Rather than the reiterative employment (in this chapter) of 'seven times'…, it is only necessary that Gd declares an edict once --that it should stand. In that He did reiterate, --He laid down and established a _principle_,

even using a form of the reiterative device that might be termed a proximation of ‘synthetic parallelism’, that is, the last of the parallels expand upon the first to clarify --intent/meaning).

jasd

February 17, 2005

KJV Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

YLT Dan 8:14 And he saith unto me, Till evening--morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right.

2300? 2300 evenings--mornings? That’s an odd number…, the oddest of all Biblical numbers…, 1150 literal days -- 3 years and 55 days or 60 days, …depending? REALLY!? It doesn’t seem to compute. Mebbe, its representative? but of what? Perhaps,

we might best be advised to advance to the rear and review what precedes…

that is, the doctrinal ‘times’ principle. It may prove beneficial to back-up all the way to Leviticus as terminus a quo, or starting point, rather than stopping-off at Numbers, as is usual. So, I ask,

why isn’t the Levitical “seven times” (2,520 day/year) curse of the Lord, --having being laid upon the COI for their transgression of the covenant (and assuredly, as promised, found its fulfillment --somewhere in time) been considered or applied in doctrinal expositions --particularly, as it pertains to Daniel 8?

Other considerations aside,

Psalms 114:2 succinctly and unequivocally states, Judah was his sanctuary?*

2300 day/years appears to be no more than THAT REMAINING of the 2520 -- “seven times” (7 “times” the 360 of the Noachide year of 360 days == 2520) curse of Leviticus 26; meaning, that Judah-as-sanctuary had yet to endure 2300 day/years until the ‘Levitical’ curse had run its course and Gd cleansed His sanctuary/Judah of the Levitical curse?

This, admittedly, unorthodox approach should (inasmuch, as the Daniel text does not), perhaps, provide a proximation for both the beginning and ending date(s) of the 2300 (and its lacuna) day/years prophecy; whereas, as presently exposited, Daniel 8 bears likeness to a thin reed.

Perhaps, when building paradigms from Daniel and Revelation, text might be viewed as having a breadth encompassing more than the papacy, --one might then also find, --wherever the papacy fits, if it does at all, --rather than allowing untoward hostilities to shade understanding of Writ.

Existing dogmas and doctrines presently extant provide no apparent consensus, as to the meaning of ‘daily/continuance’ (Daniel 8). That fact is troublesome of itself and taken with the flanking neglect of Leviticus 26 in the parsing of Daniel 8, --render attempts to understand Daniel --awkward.

Is it enough to rely upon doctrines, en toto, developed by those ‘going before’ us? I mean, do we embrace the certain credos of the RCs? No. Perhaps then, we embrace those certain credos of the Reformationists? No. Why not?

I suggest there are truths that need their own unfolding and development…, befitting different generations --and THE generation PARTICULARLY, which, incorporating us, may be the most important one of all --requiring the most serious Biblical enquiry of all, --with due consideration afforded the pioneers, as having given us their best. Giving us their best, however, is not reason for this generation to slack, to reject building --where those previously could not, or to forgo correction should correction obtain (that, however, might be a matter for another thread --about ‘perfection’).

Even the rightfully venerable EGW, though reticent, corrected her errors, when beknownst to her.

jasd

*It has been put forward that Psalms 114 is synecdochic. I disagree. Though its lyrical form may be taken by some to suggest a synecdoche, it remains that, --a suggestion, maybe a perception, no more.

February 17, 2005

JASD,

I enjoy reading your prose. I don't always, or even usually, understand it... but enjoy it, nonetheless.

February 17, 2005

WayneV

Quote:

I enjoy reading your prose. I don't always, or even usually, understand it... but enjoy it, nonetheless.

Understandable. Accepted. [/smilin'] However,

why not advance a question? or elicit a clarification? You see,

my neural paths were under construction for 'bout 35 years by Dewars et al.

Let me provide an example of Gd-prose

Pekah

Rezin

Nebo

Chadnezzar

Mene

Tekel

Upharsin --Gd

when structured as matrix, --and ask what you think? kinda neat, isn't it?

It may be probable that it is best characterized as subjective...

jasd

February 18, 2005

Developing “times” further:

Let me provide a couple of texts

Num 9:22 Or [whether it were] two days{3117}, or a month, or a year{3117}, that the cloud tarried upon the tabernacle,…

Jdg 11:40 [That] the daughters of Israel went yearly{3117} to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days{3117} in a year.

further showing that Gd was no stranger to the interchangeability of a term to mean days, years, and/or times, where ‘sense of the passage’

Dan 8:17 …he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end [shall be] the vision.

requires it.

I purport that the “seven times” of Leviticus, likewise, demands a ‘sense of the passage’ interpretation. I do not believe that Gd threatened judgements and desolations to take the form of a seven times vain repetition of

…bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD!

Nor, does sense of the passage denote a seven-year punishment or desolation of the COI. One infers a much greater lapse of time implied.

(“seven times”, keep it in mind…)

NEMO MORTALIUM OMNIBUS SAPIT - No man is test to all

February 18, 2005

It always interests me to see the differing ways in which humans use words. I guess I walk a narrow little line where, unless I'm writing poetry, I try to be as unambiguous (boring?) as possible. And here I read jasd, and find a whole new window on the purpose of words. What is the goal - to tickle the synapses? So many questions arise in the course of 10 words that when 200 words are arrayed puzzlingly in front of my eyes, I don't know where to start. I wind up understanding how my special education students must feel.

February 18, 2005

The following manifests a skill --one might covet; but to, ...errr, ummm, --covet that, which is good, is that a sin?

“ “The Hebrew word that is usually translated cleansed or restored in this passage is nisdaq. The term or root from which this word was formed is the verb sadaq. "It occurs 22 times in the active form (qal), 5 times in the intensive (piel), 12 in the causative (hiphil), once in the reflexive (hithpael), and once in the passive (niphal). This last type is found in Daniel 8:14; hence the form nisdaq. This passive form of the root sadaq unfortunately is a hapax legomenon (a word which occurs only once in the Bible). This raises the question, How shall it be properly translated?" (Frank B. Holbrook, Editor, Symposium on Daniel, p. 479). This same source explains just how easily this is done:

"The Qal forms mean ‘to be in the right, be right, have a just case, be vindicated, be just, righteous.’ The intensive forms of the Piel mean ‘to declare someone to be right, to make someone appear righteous, innocent, to desire oneself just.’ The causative Hiphil forms mean ‘to give or bring justice, to declare righteous, to justify, vindicate.’ And finally, the one Hithpael form means, ‘to justify oneself’" (ibid), p. 452. On page 479:

"The causative form (hiphil) of sadaq will mean ‘cause to be right,’ ‘cause to be just.’ The reflexive form (hithpael) will mean ‘make oneself right,’ or ‘justify oneself.’ In the same way nisdaq is simply the passive of sadaq, and will have the meaning ‘be made right,’ ‘be made just,’ or the like." "This", they say, "would be the simplest and most straightforward translation, and is the one followed by most recent Bible translators." "They have followed the immediate, ordinary meaning of the word" (ibid), p. 479.

Some have in mind that "the basic meaning of sadaq is ‘just,’ ‘right,’ or some similar term" (p. 495). This kind of reasoning is somewhat oversimplified and misleading. "All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’” ” (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175).

Hmmm, ‘justified’, ‘made righteous’…, is the ‘sanctuary’ --whether earthly or heavenly, that is, of stones, of cedar, gold, weave, etc,

--a personification?

February 18, 2005

Please, don’t mind the Re: above…; I most often use the quick reply window --and it defaults.

LynnDel

Quote:

It always interests me to see the differing ways in which humans use words.

…what then of us, carbon units!? [/smiling]

Ha! sometimes, when I review what I’ve written, I mumble to myself, Huh? did I really put that to page? what was I trying to say? Luckily, I have an immense reservoir of temerity, …without a single frangible mote of timidity lending itself to my mana. I’ve seen, frankly, miserable sunsets

--to counterpoint those of indescribable mesmerance. So, keeping in mind that

sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you,

--everything between this and that works for me, if not, it ought to.

Quote:

…unless I'm writing poetry, I try to be as unambiguous (boring?) as possible.

(boring?)… pshaw, Tace! Tacete! or, as Jay Leno would say, “Oh, shudupp…” [/grinning hugely]

Was “Green” yours? I apprehended it as yours, if not, it might as well be. I easily found you in the words, and liked especially…

“And green can be big like an ocean, …

When green is all there is to be”

So…, DON’T be demurring, --keep sharing.

Quote:

…arrayed puzzlingly in front of my eyes, I don't know where to start.

At times, neither do I. [/blithely] ;-o

You must understand; I studied a form of karate for a while and also practiced pranic breathing. The results were two-fold; I got my head kicked-in too often and held my breath too often, too long practicing prana.

I've not forgotten to respond to 1982-3. I'm almost to the bridge.

February 18, 2005

Green belongs to Kermit the Frog.

I, personally, don't know what to think of all the word play/arranging.

For a long time I thought that e.e. cummings was nothing but annoying. Then, I started to kind of groove with him.

Now, I'm back to just, plain ol' say it the way it needs to be said--too much time is wasted trying to decipher the text.

There is room in this world for poetry, arts and even beautiful literature. But when I'm trying to get my point across to another, I usually want him/her to understand me--not to look at me (my words) and utter, "Huh?"

No offense. Just opinion.

February 18, 2005

Christine Wall

Thank-you, for your observations, especially that about Kermit, I’ve never spent time with the gang on Sesame St, --obviously, my loss.

Quote:

Green belongs to Kermit the Frog.

Ah so…, its provenance established, it remains appreciatively soft-spoken and well-taken. I suppose there is that to be said for television; further, I am indebted to LynnDel for sharing, as I was edified by it.

Quote:

e.e. cummings was nothing but annoying.

“If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!” —WayneV

jasd, …it may not be [/grinnin’, grinnin’, …]; nevertheless, it was welcomed as friendly and refreshing.

Although I get whizzed-off at a few petty things, I guess I’m not much for being annoyed.

Quote:

But when I'm trying to get my point across to another, I usually want him/her to understand me--not to look at me (my words) and utter, "Huh?"

If that is an overriding issue with you, then I encourage you to endeavour; and, I’m available to lend a hand if wished-for. Now,

if I have given anyone the idea that I write for everyone, I am obliged to apologize, “I’m sorry to have mislead.”

I truly do not think that everyone who writes --writes for all; and I truly do not think that parables were utilized in the NT that all might perceive… For whatever reason(s), there are those who select --paths less traveled, as it were.

I write, substantially so, to compose a corpus for my future reference, intending to make what use of it I may (if it were not done on a format, such as a forum provides, for example..., I would slough). If there are those who wish to address themselves to the issues I either raise or address, I say, “Welcome, come share that I, and others may be the better for it.” --for is it not written that we ought to witness of that, which is made known to us? And,

if there are those who disagree, they might wish to refute what I put forward. However,

less one labors under peculiar prejudices and/or unfounded perceptions (for example: I am a Sabbatarian, though I will argue Hosea, Lamentations, and the absence of a New Testamental adjuration to observe a ‘day uncertain’ that those who are able to hear will cease condemning without authority their brothers and sisters in Christ --'bout dis an' dat), --let that one so burdened ask.

Gd does not hesitate to ask,

“Where [art] thou?”

“Who told thee that thou [wast] naked?”

“Hast thou eaten…?”

“What [is] this [that] thou hast done?” --Gd, Genesis 3

One does not assume that Gd is ignorant because He asks.

I might add that, I’ve found that anyone truly interested in a matter can understand it were it even presented unattractively, obliquely, or even as I have seen, --deceitfully.

For the use of “Huh”, please, allow another the idiosyncratic rhetoric of his or her choosing.

Quote:

No offense. Just opinion.

I’ll take your word for it. As for opinion, mebbe, you’d like to positively direct yours to some of the issues raised on this thread?

(is ‘that’avatar Kermit? if so, he looks to be a real charmer) I should be as much…;-)

jasd

February 18, 2005

Hippocrates said, "The chief virtue that language can have is clearness." It's as true now as when he said it.

Stream of consciousness, left to its own devices, has its problems - it shows too much and says too little.

Regards,

Norm

February 18, 2005

J(Cric

ket!)

i

miny

and

1

411

February 19, 2005

“I see you, NormF.”

Sorry, I didn’t respond, as quickly as perhaps, I ought to have. I was just barely able to check C/A this morning before heading out for the county seat. (remind me to relate to you of the links between my county seat {Oregon} and Biblical passages, one day, --if interested) So, I’ve been unable to give your post much thought today, for that, I’ll respond to it only briefly…

Quote:

Stream of consciousness, left to its own devices, has its problems - it shows too much and says too little.

Ran into the gist of that little thing above when I was reading Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and others in younger days. A plus to that experience and tangential to them, I ran into a neat work on the mechanics of consciousness by a Benson (I believe), --recommended.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested in a few first impressions...

/ Do you think the two quotes you provided may be somewhat mutually exclusive?

/ I like “Stream of consciousness…” used non-pejoratively, and the first thought I had was ‘ribbons to the sky…’

/ Coupled with “…left to its own devices, has its problems…”, I think is a bit too subjective to be colloquially externalized.

/ “…it shows too much and says too little.” MacArthur Park --Jimmy Webb

and, Gestalt.

Whereas, bless his soul, ‘Hippocrates’ is, in the above, elementary and oversimplified. I would opt for conveyance, not necessarily one’s own thoughts, but inclusively --how they are read… for example:

per a few recent posts, I believe that they were meant to convey more than is apparent. WDYT? would a person be wrong to be thusly persuaded…? Sometimes, how a thing is conveyed is more important than the transparency of the language utilized.

Please, I invite you to direct your thoughts to the Theological issues raised; I’m entirely comfortable with my capriciousness in writing. That won’t be changing for awhile… That being said,

and given the nature of what accompanied your “Regards”, what, exactly, don’t you understand about what I’ve posted?

jasd

February 19, 2005

[/grinnin'...]

February 19, 2005

Back on point:

Quote:

…what if, texts attesting to Gd’s Old Testamental withdrawal of the Sabbath from the COI,…

So, we have

Hos 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

voicing the terrible solemnity from Gd upon the Northern Kingdom.

Did the Southern Kingdom of Judah escape the pronouncement? in very fact, a curse?

Lam 2:6 …the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion,…

So, Writ provides its exegete two prophets prophesying ‘as the HS moved them’, one to the Northern Kingdom Israel, and one to the Southern Kingdom Judah. That just about covers the COI living in old Canaanland, doesn’t it?

The two prophecies are hardly debatable as set down in Writ. They exist. The question next obtaining is,

does a later text exist demonstrating a reinstatement by Gd of His Seventh-day Sabbath rest? I put it,

there is none existent in Old Testamental text following these declarations by Hosea and Jeremiah. Awkward but true, there is none in New Testamental text, either. That having been said,

isn’t there a Seventh-day Sabbath remaining unto us? Are you a person attended-to by conscience, constraining you to honor Gd upon a day, which He commanded “Remember…”? Does your best assessment of the matter persuade you that it is that, which your calendar presently designates, --Saturday? Then, you are constrained to keep that day unto the Lord. Bbbut,

what of your neighbour who is equally persuaded in his mind and in his heart that Sunday is the day given to praise and worship the Lord? Same Gd. Different day. Big trouble at Exposition Corral? Actually,

your neighbour's construction, given those texts in Hosea and Lamentations, is as redoubtable as yours or mine. (pssst, on the QT, it may be that his construction is better founded than ours)

Summing, you and I are persuaded in our spirits and are constrained to honor the Lord upon the calendrical Saturday, and they upon a day their Gd-led consciences lead them to worship. Otherwise,

what must we do with Hosea and Jeremiah? Having said all that, am I is or am I not Biblical to exhort to the following…

Quote:

(for example: I am a Sabbatarian, though I will argue Hosea, Lamentations, and the absence of a New Testamental adjuration to observe a ‘day uncertain’ that those who can hear will

cease condemning without authority their brothers and sisters in Christ

) _edited_

jasd

February 19, 2005

Could it be that "the Lord hath caused" is in the same sense as "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" - more a description of events than an actual cause/effect chronology?

What is COI?

Most of my days are spent entirely among those who are not 7th-day-Sabbath-keepers. I don't know any who is fully convinced in his or her own mind regarding the sacredness of Sunday. Most are fully convinced in their own traditions, but none regard Sunday as a day that should be entirely reserved for God and His purposes. Not to say that such people don't exist, but to provide a little excuse as to why I am toddling off to bed without saying more.

LD

February 20, 2005

LynnDel

Quote:

Could it be that "the Lord hath caused" is in the same sense as "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" - more a description of events than an actual cause/effect chronology?

Perhaps, it may be so. I’ve found that the more I know about things Biblical the less I know. I don’t believe I’m unique upon that point; there are over 30,000 independent Protestant groups alone! believing their understanding of Writ differs sufficiently and peculiarly so from others, as to warrant separation. It seems either Gd is woefully amiss in shepherding His word or --He prefers that we faith, rather than dwelling upon 'head knowledge'. Having said this,

and not dismissing the Lord, --by whatever ‘cause’, the ‘effect’ --was effectuated, or precipitated.

I note that the Adventist Commentary subscribes to an observational perspective, as pertains to Jeremiah’s Lamentation verse 6, that is, Jeremiah is to be understood as engaged in a running narrative upon the existing condition of a ruined city, without seeming charge, as to agency, for its ruin. That is oppositional to all parallel translations and avails to itself too much latitude in its parsing of text.

‘Lord hath caused’ is found once in Writ and twice, ‘Lord caused’. There are additionally, about an equal number of times Writ affirms that Pharaoh hardened his heart and by turn, Gd hardened Pharaoh’s heart. I suppose a corollary, of sorts, exists in the incident of David’s numbering of Israel. In both cases, I am given to a literal reading of Writ and am inclined to the otherwise --only upon a persuasive dialog to the contrary of my own understanding.

Quote:

What is COI?

Upon this point I am remiss. I saw this acronym used upon other Adventist forums and just employed it --like fashion. It is Children of Israel.

February 20, 2005

LynnDel

Quote:

I don't know any who is fully convinced in his or her own mind regarding the sacredness of Sunday. Most are fully convinced in their own traditions,…

I am inclined to two forms of sacredness as pertinent to a dialog about a Sabbath day; one, as relates to a day having a sacredness endued with scriptural attestation by a Gd-speak; the other, an avowedly invested sacredness by, as you’ve noted, ‘traditions’. Those ‘traditions’ might be characterized as comprising honor, worship, fear, praise, respect, etc. This invested sacredness would be compelled by an acknowledgement of the Supreme Diety of the Gdhead and that, which follows. As you’ve mentioned,

the Sunday observer is most fully convinced in his or her tradition… Is that good or bad? right or wrong? at one time almost the entirety of New Testament epistemology was no more than tradition, varied, and including disputant teachings. Even the term agape is invested with its present meanings due to Xtian appropriation of the word. It was almost non-existent in Greek literature. I believe it was found only once in Classic Greek.

Its meanings are still thought numinous, with those holding to its likeness being, perhaps best allegorized as ‘that thing with feathers (apologies, Emily)’ that perches in the heart --whose wingflutters bestir the Xtian to his or her transport -- are also, holding to ‘tradition’. What then of one that is unable to properly agape? is his or her feathered little creature --a dodo in the heart? (not attempting to be facetious; you know, some, though fully exercising disciplined behaviour {10Cs}, cannot emote…) I suppose I most favor a rendering that ‘agape is a thing of the intellect’ deriving from a ‘He first loved us’ -- therefor, we agapao Him; an appreciation of cost, ‘He gave His life that we should live’ -- therefor, we are obliged; and there is that also, ‘He purchased us’, therefor, we are His slaves.

‘Christ’ is also, for the most part, is coined. Per one example: a preceding article initially always preceded Christos. It was only later that the article was dropped to evolve --name from title --to give it its, presently, Proper use. Christos and agape were vernacularized. So,

who, at that ‘time of transitions, of sea change’, sat in Moses’ seat? and, did that seat cede to others --later arrived? if so, when or where?

Quote:

…but none regard Sunday as a day that should be entirely reserved for God and His purposes.

Allow me to first observe that it is so with the Saturday keeper(s), as well. It may differentiate by a matter of degrees, as is presently argued on another board, this forum, --but one need only go into any Better Living Center of the .Org and see the microwaves humming away, the dishes being washed, the chairs and tables being arranged, etc, on the Sabbath. One might then, naturally wonder who it is that are actually ‘within or without the gates’ or servant(s)-to, or…

I’m not decrying, as I am a liberal in such matters. I only argue that there is a perception of perspectives at play.

I’ve alluded to the enigmatic NT absence of an iterated command regards any particular day for the keeping, other than that of ‘by custom’. There does not exist such for the fourth commandment. That is disturbing, even sans the two texts I’ve been dwelling upon with their derivatives (which I attempt to conflate). Given that, together with those two aforementioned texts, a New Testamental day of observance seems to be one of volition. I mean,

Writ took necessary pains to reiterate singularly, all of the other nine… but??

…Not trying to deconstruct you; just sharing my observations. Of course, only Writ is authoritative.

Addendum: I acknowledge and appreciate your Xtian courtesies; Biblical charisma too often finds itself in the ditch on the Way to Beulahland. Of course, I am not the innocent traveler. That being said, I do not wish that you feel constrained, for innate goodness, to assist the continuum of this thread. It has enough vinegar, soda, and general cussedness (moi) to keep it chugging…[/laughin’ and scratchin’] (though, when/if you’re of a mind, your participation is enjoyed, --thoroughly):-)

February 21, 2005

Quote:

Nicodema

Quote:

Why have you chosen THAT TIME PERIOD???? Why 1982-1983?????????

They may have individual biases or claims of authority that could wrongfully influence their tablets of dispensation and which, in turn, --could get a fella shibbolethin’ on the wrong side of the equation. [/grinnin’] The raison d’être being,

the warrior ought fill his quiver selectively, discarding the untrue shaft, the imprecise barb, and the improperly fletched; --his continuing sublimity dependant upon his choices. One’s own death is a very personal thing. [/say what!]

Say what indeed! Say, what? Say what to me. You're speaking my language but you're being all coy and hidden. I want you where I can see you. Can I entice you to meet me out on a field beyond right and wrong for further conversation?

Quote:

So, dispensing with qualifiers, what I believe per 1982-3, is actually quite pedestrian, 1982-3 is a constructive.

But it is yours and it is also one of mine, and for that reason alone I am intrigued to the point of pain

Quote:

“--the saying is hard and thou couldst not bear it; therefor, it is not given for me to say; howbeit, the times shall come when all things, whether they be hidden, whether they be in darkness, or whether they be naught of these, shall be revealed.” (jasd 12:12) [/ouch!]

Ouch indeed. Indulge me in verse 13?

Quote:

A play, a controversy as well,

must have its protagonists

. In the immediate case they are --Jerusalem and Babylon, ‘spiritual’, or otherwise, --together with us, you and I. For the play/controversy to unfold, the principals/actors must first, be identifiable, second, they must either be on mark, on stage, or --as we, in the wings. Though presently awaiting our cues, we are [soon, expectantly] to comprise a part of the milieu, the mise en scène, if you will, of the Final Act, final scene --with curtain descending, Fin: and, the melting away… The question is,

will we be on our marks and cues?

jasd

Ever sold your soul for a lead role in the apocalypse? I thought I had. Now will you meet with me or not? [/wants your email or something...]

February 21, 2005

Quote:

NEMO MORTALIUM OMNIBUS SAPIT - No man is test to all

Nay, for that we need a woman. Or an angel fallen. Or a woman with an angel fallen. But the test isn't cerebral. It's cardial.

February 21, 2005

Quote:

Ran into the gist of that little thing above when I was reading Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and others in younger days. A plus to that experience and tangential to them, I ran into a neat work on the mechanics of consciousness by a Benson (I believe), --recommended.

Aha ... first prana and martial arts but now we see the reading material: Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, et al. [/smile] I hail from Crowley, Grant and Spare country myself. I understand we are seen a bit dark and barbarous by the likes of your refined senses but we did, after all, get the ball rolling and the job done. [/ahem! with one eyebrow raised] (Most don't realize how heavily Crowley incorporated pranayam and other practical Buddhist techniques into his mystical praxis nor how deep the current of his thought could run.)

Sign In

Refugee

Recommended Posts

Guest

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest

Guest

LynnDel

Guest

jasd

WayneV

jasd

jasd

LynnDel

jasd

jasd

cricket

jasd

NormF

cricket

jasd

jasd

jasd

LynnDel

jasd

jasd

Nicodema

Nicodema

Nicodema

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity