Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

Hope things are well ... Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether regarding Levitical Catholicism, Levitical Protestantism or Levitical Evangelicism in general, as long as they maintain their theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse as it relates to the magik of a blood sacrifice?One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hope things are well ... Can one present evidence that the sky is 'generally regarded' as an 'exceptional' shade of blue?One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi kbertsche and thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well with you and yours ... Are you able to demonstrate how theology is derived and guided by experimentation, as opposed to belonging to your mind rather than to a god or god(s)? In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi kbertsche ...
Hope all is well.

quote:

---

Forum Guidelines

​

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation ...

​

Avoid bare assertions ...

---

Where do you perceive any claims within my query k-bert? Message 204 was only meant to offer reasoned argumentation. It's safe to assume you may not regard the sky as an exceptional shade of blue then?I can hardly tell, as you seem to be barely asserting your position. Perhaps the issue is derived from regarding a question as a claim ...In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ochaye.
I hope things are well with you ... Chances are your right. Yet, just because a player suggests a call is unjust, doesn't support the idea that it is. That's what the referee and rulebook's for.
I may be better at simply calling a spade a spade, and so, if you were the ref and vocabulary was the rulebook, how would you make the call? In all fairness, that's what we're here for - to encourage each others understanding's towards a certain progression. Perhaps we've taken a lil' step ... Are you suggesting that a liberal may sense themselves as something more like an evangelical or vice versa?As an aside, I get the basic sense that they are both embarrassed catholics. Curiously, catholics often seem so embarrassed by themselves that they appear to make attempts towards posing as christians in general. I think you may have touched on a similar dynamic within Message 210. Do you think evangelicals, protestants or catholics make any distinctions in the concept of hell, aside from disputes in which ones are on their way?
Perhaps any distinction within that doctrine may be more easily perceived as a variant on membership rules or degrees of embarrassment as well?In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : Spelled ochaye's name properly ...

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try to take advice. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot - You'll get there. Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange cavediver ...
I hope things are well with you and yours. lol - because they evolved into Levitical Catholics, of course. Seriously though ...I often leave them out of the mix, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they gave up tryin' ever since the Romans kicked their asses back in the seventies.

quote:

---

jewfaq.org writes ...

​

      For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.

---

LinkBeing that the ToRaH forbids them to perform these types of rituals in any ol' synagogue, it seems they just play it on the safe side in the meantime.

quote:

---

jewfaq.org writes ...

​

      We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.

---

LinkApparently, not having learned much after the other two were destroyed, Orthodox Jews are under the impression that their Messiah will provide a Third temple, worthy of the task of draining life's blood, some time after he arrives. Until then, they get to enjoy the veiw that the Dome of the Rock provides ...

quote:

---

jewfaq.org writes ...

​

      The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.

​

      Orthodox Jews believe that when the messiah comes, a place will be provided for sacrificial purposes.

---

LinkFrom what I understand, only Orthodox Jews wish to resume the ritual of blood sacrifices through the archaic slaughter of innocent farm animals (or the venemous slaughtering of their Prophets - whichever comes first perhaps). They, like the majority of practitioners with the Levitical Catholic and Christian traditions, are under the assumption that brutha Yirmiyahu, and the likes, lie about the Levite scribes forging the ToRaH during the time of the first Yerusalem Temple.On the other hand, Reform Judaism doesn't believe the current ToRaH at our disposal, made up of the first five law booklets as displayed in the common roman bible, are the Father's authentic instructions or teachings, but rather that those manuscripts are a plethora of later creative editting and redaction.

quote:

---

jewfaq.org writes ...

​

      Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by G-d. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism, along with some of the practices and the culture. The original, basic tenets of American Reform Judaism were set down in the Pittsburgh Platform. Many non-observant, nominal, and/or agnostic Jews will identify themselves as Reform when pressed to specify simply because Reform is the most liberal movement, but that is not really a fair reflection on the movement as a whole. There are plenty of Reform Jews who are religious in a Reform way. The NJPS found that 35% of American Jews identify themselves as Reform, including 39% of those who belong to a synagogue. There are approximately 900 Reform synagogues in the United States and Canada. For more information about Reform Judaism, see The Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

---

LinkBasically there two other prominent movements within the Jewish traditions - that I know of, in our current day; Conservative and Reconstructionist. Anyway though, the second reason I tend to leave them all out is that none of them actually require the magik of blood sacrifice to forgive sins.Keep in mind, jewfaq.org is maintained by Orthodox - or Levitical, Jews ...

quote:

---

jewfaq.org writes ...

​

How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices?

​

      Forgiveness is obtained through repentance, prayer and good deeds.
      In Jewish practice, prayer has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3) (please note: the KJV translates this somewhat differently). While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Our prayer services are in many ways designed to parallel the sacrificial practices. For example, we have an extra service on Shabbat, to parallel the extra Shabbat offering.

​

But isn't a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness?

​

     No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all. The Biblical book of Jonah tells of an entire community condemned to destruction that was forgiven when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or otherwise. (Jonah 3)
      The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10, 11 and 12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."

​

Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?

​

      Not according to Judaism. Jews don't believe that people need supernatural salvation from sin (sincere repentance and good deeds are sufficient to obtain forgiveness; see above), and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah.
      Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
      Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.

---

LinkNow my main issue with the preceding notions is that, if these variant traditions don't necessitate the magik of a blood sacrifice to forgive sins and ...If - according to that author, 'some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future' and 'Rambam suggest{s} that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires' and the 'limitations' prescribed within the available written ToRaH code were 'designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors', then just why is it that they're stayin' prepared and gettin' ready to fire them bloody and murderous traditions right back up as soon as they get their paws on the Third temple?In the end, my friend, I'm still just a lil' weary ... {blushes}So then, I'm also going to take this opportunity to say that I admire the way you often translate some of the more complex concepts within the boundaries of physics into in a way us less experienced laymen may easily comprehend them and - if for no other reason, you're my favorite cavediver and physicist Thanks to Son Goku and yourself, I've been sucked into the science matrix quite a few times - lolIn the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : pnct.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try to take advice. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot - You'll get there. Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange kbertsche ...
I hope things are well with you and yours. You seemed to be using the differentiation between empiricism and subjectivity as a means to support a contention that theological musings are objective.Perhaps I was mistaken and, if so, that was certainly my misunderstanding. Not at all ... mutually exclusive - perhaps, but not opposites though; that would seem to be false dichotomy of sorts. You stated that 'empiricism and objectivity are different concepts' and while that may be true ...It doesn't seem to suggest why the field of theology isn't subjective?In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange ochaye.
Glad things are well with you ... I'd call that a fair play ... All things considered, that's more than understandable. There's a sense that, for one to even begin to contemplate whether or not there was/can be a Christ - or an Anointed One, a clear understanding should first exist as to what one would achieve, thus identifying a consise purpose. While considering the variant approaches taken on that matter as they relate to Judaism, Catholicism and Christianity on the whole, it may become easy to consider that one cannot arrive at that 'clear' definition apart from the indoctrination of independent subjectively interpreted doctrines hardly evidenced within scripture text.At least, not without without being considered as some sorta hairy tick for failing to conform to the democratic majority of variant priesthoods.Who, of course, are amiss all through scripture, lest there be no need for prophets.Anyway, in terms of further identifying evangelicals, perhaps we may employ David Bebbington's quadrilateral. Being a broadly accepted and fairly well established definition of evangelicalism, it attempts to identitify four main qualities employed towards defining evangelical attitudes and convictions.1) Activism, suggesting a belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in a concerted - as well as independent, effort, as opposed to purely rhetoric.2) Biblicism, catering to a particular regard for the common roman bible, and further suggesting all necessary spiritual truths may be found within its pages.3) Conversionism, denoting the requirement of internalizing a new belief system which directly implies a new reference point for one's self identity.4) Crucicentrism, directing one's focus towards the various atonement methods available in relation to the Anointed One's 'work' on the cross. In otherwords, for the most part, some may tend to perceive others as nasty hairy ticks of sorts if/when they're unwilling to adhere to the independent doctrinal conclusions arranged by, arrived at and finally concluded, as well as, confirmed by the democratic majority within their correlating priesthoods. I've yet to stumble upon a christian tradition, liberal or otherwise, that is willing to declare that sacrifice is unnecessary. Yet, one may, perhaps, safely posit Reform Judaism and Islam as Abrahamic traditions holding to those standards. Granted, unless the Anointing refers to that of a prophet - as opposed to a kingship, they don't claim Joshua.Then again, according to the booklet of Samuel, the Father was disheartened that the nomads desired a King in the first place. So, providing Joshua was a Son of God, as well as, the Son of Man as he often referred to himself, for what logical reason might he want to displease his Father and continue with such a dissappointing tradition as Kingship?I'm tryin' to think of one off hand, but I'm drawin' a blank over here ...Nevertheless, it isn't uncommon to see liberals placing more attention on the Christus Victor veiw, while evangelicals gravitate towards p-sub. A fair assessment; yet, while there are many differentiations that can be made, both of these traditions seem to rely heavily on each other for support. At least in the sense that, many of their 'mysteries' seem to be completely unevidenced apart from one another; in otherwords, they both employ subjective concepts that are seemingly unevidenced apart from indoctrination, and usually not even spoken of clearly, nor by parable, within the NT by Joshua, or his disciples. That is to say, if two mannequins, side by side, were representative of each tradition, then perhaps their preferred dress code may represent their variant doctrines, as though only the outer garments were distinct. Scary stuff - while I would say some evangelical's are beginning to embrace the more classical liberation theology associated with Origen and the likes ...I've, at times, perceived evangelical's as faux Catholic's, as if that whole 'infiltration' dynamic you suggested may have been what birthed their original movements all that time ago. Imo, considering their shared emphasis on the passion and a certain sense of romance, a constant resemblance seems to rear it's head, apart from their obvious divisions of 'grace'/'works' and veneration/ no veneration, etc. - in the fashion of Rome's infamous divide and conquer technique, of course. I want to hear Mel Gibson's perspective, after all, he must have paid attention to the statistics as he counted all his loochey.Perhaps you had a good point earlier about some evangelicals when you suggest that their too far from the catholic mindset to be an embarrassed catholic, even if it's only because they've never seriously examined the roots of their denominational familiy tree, and so, are a bit out of touch with their roots.Evidently, Calvinists may be considered an evangelical majority and the power it fought - even killed, for and with gave way to a certain influence over what's disseminated throughout our modern landscape. Indeed, in Calvin's day, his authority within Geneva had ultimate 'weight', which - when combined with some of his more questionable methods of debate, is no doubt why some referred to the Geneva of his day as the 'Rome of Protestantism', and further - to the man himself, as the 'Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva'. So then, it's no secret that Calvin maintained a desire to demonstrate his Christian orthodoxy amongst Catholics, especially when fighting to maintain his weakening power in Geneva, and what better way than to declare a protester a hairy tick?Consider how the Calvinists, as some of the earliest breeds of Evangelical's, indoctrinated there prey. One need only consider the famous episode of the libertine and atheist Jacques Gruet, who - although openly admitted a certain disdain for the law, whether it be those relating to men or Gods, thought it good to pen some letters of criticism regarding the Consistory, as well as, petitioning the Catholic king of France to intervene in the political and religious affairs of Geneva. While the man may be considered in many ways too far ahead of his time and in others, too far behind his own, he was arrested by Calvin, tortured for a month and beheaded in 1547 CE. So then, what is Evangelical Calvinism and the 'Remonstrance', if not another Catholic turd?Now, while disputing theological matters peacefully seems to be a tenet of Joshua's tradition, to debate theology with the likes of John Calvin seems to have been a certain death sentence - as can be further evidenced by his treatment of a Spanish physician convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities. After mistakingly attending a sermon of Calvin's - a pit stop in Geneva that would prevent him permanently from reaching his Italian destination, his fortune of escaping the Pope by means of prison break was short lived. That this man placed any hope or trust in Calvin and the Reformers, who had already firmly denounced him, may display a sense of desperation or a plea of reconciliation towards bridging the gap between him and fellow Protesters.Just as John Hus was torched at the stake by the Roman Catholics in 1415 CE over 'doctrine' and Luther just made it out by the skin of his teeth, John Calvin, likewise, continued on in the former murderous trends that Luther avoided and disputed (not to imply anti-semitism), by having Michael Servetus burned at the stake, etc.. Yet, it is more than obvious that doctrine was not the sole issue - although Servetus was actively disputing Trinitarianism and Infant Baptism, but rather these murders are most always politically motivated, as was Joshua's according to the witness of the common roman bible.So I ask, considering the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around Servetus' feet - with a sulfur infested wreath upon his poor head, and then took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in an, eventually, blazing fire while various residents of Geneva stood around to watch him slowly suffer and die; is it then possible for a man such as John Calvin to have been a 'great theologian'? Or rather, a 'prominent politician'? Let's take another perspective, supposing a man from a certain church with a reputation for being a 'spiritual leader' captured your neighbor's dog and chained it to a stake, then using a small amount of green kindling to slowly burn the dog to death, would you want him to, then, interpret the bible for you? Or rather, run for political office?Perhaps this 'evangelical reformer' was indeed the 'Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva'; yet, he had himself snazzy new, less recognizable, outer garments. Moreover, why is it that facts like these ones, regarding the murderous tendencies within John Calvin's life of crime, rarely go mentioned in our day? The answer becomes obvious and simple - as they are both an embarrassment and refutation to any Calvinists who proudly refer to themselves by his name. Thus, since they're an evangelical majority, it's likely their power and influence keeping information of this nature about their founder seldom, if ever, heard.I mean, were any of the early christian denominations - if even Luthers (ie. On the Jews and Their Lies, On War against the Turk, etc.), established without the use of inquisitional methodologies, and then, subsidized by a lack of indoctrination of those occurences? It seems interesting how seldom practitioners care to discuss their denominational origins, as well as, the behaviors of the ruling authorities and methods that founded them; they seem most effectively overshadowed by romantical doctrines. Finally, would Calvin the evangelist protester have promoted such murderous acts without Catholic indoctrination? Speaking of Catholic and Protestant embarrassment, I'm curious of your opinion - do you think Luther would have ever come to his conclusions regarding a Christ - much less the conclusion he finally arrived at, apart from the intense, relentless fear and preconceived doctrines he was indoctrinated with?That is, if Luther had never been indoctrinated at all, what would he have concluded if given a desert, forty days and a common roman bible?One Love

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange ochaye.
Glad things are well with you ... It seems it was common enough to base all other authoritative renditions on.It's nothing, more ot less, but a term which may safely indicate that the bible(s) most are familar with are a rendition of the one bought and paid for by Constantine. By it's usage, it assumes other texts, such as those found within the Nag Hammadi Library, are not specifically being included as a witness. I think it fair to say a complete forty day wilderness trek wouldn't stunt one's spiritual beginnings, much less disaffect the continuity of their life ... That's a conclusion - your conclusion, which is not to say that I find it offensive, but rather acceptable, interesting and inconclusive, considering that only later authors, editors and redactors referred to the Anointed One as a 'christ' or 'sacrifice'; while Joshua, himself, referenced his work as that of a ransom ...And there may be some Good News to be found in that notion as well. Again, I don't think it unfair to acknowledge that those are later interpolations and polemics offered up, but the identification as 'saviour' begs the question of what one's being saved from. In a tangible sense, might it be those who claim to be a teacher or a religious father of sorts, as well as the rhetoric they attach to their claims? Anyway, messiah is the transliteration of the original testament Hebrew word pronounced maw-shakh, meaning Anointed One.That term, when translated into the latter roman testaments in Greek, becomes Christos. The term 'Christ' carries much of its original Yuhdean meaning of 'Messiah' - or 'one who is anointed' or appointed by the Father with a unique and special mission and purpose on Earth. Since the first century CE, Christ has been used as the name of the man who was known during His own lifetime as Jesus/Joshua/Yashua of Nazareth. I'd say rightly so, for Joshua did not deny to be the Anointed One - or the Christ/Messiah; yet, in all fairness, did he not suggest others determine who he was themselves by often asking ...'Who do you say I am?'Joshua is many things to many people ...But the common term of Christ is, again, a later interpolation and one never used by the man himself. It is a term that has been decorated like a asherah pole, with many brilliant, and different, lights of vague assumption, which isn't at all meant to imply that Joshua is somehow incapable of 'saving' people. Well - not directly anyway ... Then again, neither was Joshua.There's the sense that Christians may often be to the Anointed One, what Yisraelites - as displayed in the original texts, often were to the Father ...That is to say, spiritual rascists, and stumbling around in the dark with the rest of humanity. Your perspective has become an interesting thing to me and your wit quite enjoyable I don't sense that anyone is suggesting that those who self-identify as Christians are socially unacceptable because of their individual belief in the Catholic invention of 'hell', but rather that they may easily become a bit socially unacceptable when they peddle their forced theological assumptions down the throats of others. Perhaps, especially when this is done to someone other than religious authority figures, such as a rabbi, pastor or priest, considering the concept - within it's original understanding and application, was most always employed and directed by Joshua in exactly this fashion. The exception is often considered to be Lazarus' parable, which may easily be demonstrated to be frequently misinterpreted, as parables - and their hidden meanings, often are.If any, which passage from scripture texts would you promote in favor of threatening the masses of people on earth with the repercussions of Gehinom fire? I think that may go back past Constantine; he simply adopted the ways of his forefathers - the same people that Yuhdean monarchists competed with. However, I think you're on to something when you focus your attention towards the exploiting of others in an attempt to acquire personal and national wealth. Although, I'd quickly add the desire to capture any recognition of spiritual status through competition; as what is that all about, if not greed?Is this not where many stumbling blocks occur within the common roman bible, as well as, within the CE historical record ...Along the pursuit of spiritual nationalism? Perhaps Christians reject Joshua's affection and love when they compete with one another to be recognized as True Christians^TM.I can't help but to reflect on John 4:19 and Roman 2:29 at this moment ...In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange percy.
Hope things are well with you ... Nicely put Percy ...It doesn't seem unfair to suggest that an apocalyptic upbringing is partially responsible for the irrational antagonism that one may display. Perhaps the best evidence is the irrational antagonism itself as it relates to defending the veiws one has accepted during their upbringing.There is a sense that irrational antagonism is manifested when one is willing to fear and aggressively pursue that which they do not know. This type of antagonism and fear is often exposed by those with theological backgrounds, as well as, within the behaviors of those who do not ...Which may go a long way towards displaying that exposure to fire and brimsrone preaching at a young age is not the sole motivating impulse. Hopefully that's not how you received my rant in Message 251 relating to Evangelical Calvinism and how it may relate to the movement as a whole. That was meant, in part, to display how indoctrination in general - whether into politics, religion or a secular life, can often lead to irrational antagonism ...And to show that one's preferred poltical, religious or secular label may have little bearing on that fact.In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange k-bert.
Glad things are well with you ... Thanks for that k-bert. Glad you didn't suggest them Mnsterites though - kinda lacking in the pacifist department.Actually, I'd highly recommend Estep's 'The Anabaptist story: an introduction to sixteenth-century Anabaptism' to anyone with time on their hands ...Them Frisian, South German and Swiss Brethren Anabaptists were surely a separate breed, considering their being chased all around by the Commanding Roman Levites and Protesters for denying paedobaptism or the silly right of ius gladdi, as well as refusing to swear to them extraneous credal oaths or to wear wedding jewelry and all. Btw, that spanish feller I mentioned in Message 251, that John Calvin murdered for the Pope, was one of them more radical pacifist reformers - albeit, considered a sort of rationalist by some. As one of them ol' Anabaptist converts and sympathizers, Pilgram Marpeck, wrote¹ ...

quote:

---

Many of them have remained constant, enduring tortures inflicted by sword, rope, fire and water and suffering terrible, tyrannical, unheard-of deaths and martyrdoms, all of which they could easily have avoided by recantation.

---

... Which is certainly the case in Mr. Servetus' blazing and venemous murder. As the record shows², Calvin's henchman No webpage found at provided URL: Gillaume Farel ...

quote:

---

... walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage of words, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mind was to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgement of his theological error - a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd: 'Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.'

---

Yea - I'd say it becomes more than evident 'what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power' at this point in the game. It continues ...

quote:

---

When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: 'Oh God, Oh God!' The thwarted Farel snapped at him: 'Have you nothing else to say?' This time Servetus replied to him: 'What else might I do, but speak of God!' Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...

---

From another source³, it is confirmed that Farel ...

quote:

---

... noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.

---

Now, I'm sure some scientists are devoted to their convictions in relation to their particular field of study, but how many would be as devoted as Mike?Anyway, when the concept of a separation of church and state - and the ideologies associated with them, were introduced by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was unthinkable to most all poli-religious fanatics alike. It may be the radical ideologies and pacificism displayed by the Anabaptists, as the pioneers of a free church and freedom of religion, that afforded the liberties towards religious pursuit; which were - and still are at times, often equated with anarchy by some. It's no wonder then, that their traditions, as well as those akin to Henry David Thoreau's, were admired and admonished by some of those closely associated to the ideals of Christian Anarchists such as the 'first hippie' - Dorothy Day, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and Tripp York to name just a few - who most always believe{d} that freedom is justified spiritually through Joshua's teachings.But that's neither here nor there I suppose, and the important thing to remember is - the Anabaptist communities make some of the best cheese curd.Btw - I bought an Adirondack bed frame from them some time ago as well, and its held up very, very nicely ... crafty sons o' guns, I'll tell ya.In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love ¹ Marbeck, P. (1978). The writings of Pilgram Marpeck , Scottdale, PA: Herald, pp.50.

​

² Nigg, W. (1962). The heretics, University of Michigan: Knopf, pp.327.

​

² Bainton, R.H. (1960) Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp.214.

​

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ochaye ...
Hope things are well with you & yours. Quickly, if I may ... what is the difference, if not semantics?An abundance of evidence is widely accepted indicating that the various booklets within the church testament were written between 50 CE and to 100 CE. However, there is no evidence that any gospel other than Matisyahu, Mark, Luke and John was received as valid scripture within the actual orthodox church.Nevertheless, sufficient evidence is extant to paint a picture of the position at the close of 2^nd century CE. By this time, the four synoptic gospels - and no others, were in official use. Irenaeus leaves us in no doubt about the 'fourfold' Gospels and Tertullian and other church fathers of the same era confirm this.
The booklet of The Unveiling was possibly in use by the 2^nd century, but it's not until the 3^nd century that any evidence for its use becomes widespread.By the end of the 2^nd century, the booklet entitled 'Acts of the Apostles' can be evidenced as being 'accepted'. There is also little to no doubt that, by this time, the thirteen epistles of uncle Paul were accepted on the same level as the the former five booklets mentioned. Apart from 1 Peter and 1 John, any evidence concerning the remaining booklets is quite scant. The assemblance of the 'new' canon was performed mainly at the council at Carthage in 397 CE.During the time of the formation of the 'new' testament canon, there were indeed only twenty out of the twenty-seven booklets being readily and universally accepted as genuine - therefore called 'Homologoumena' (i.e. things conceded, agree to, acknowledged, etc.). These twenty booklets were the four synoptic Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (not including Hebrews), and the first epistles attributed to John and Peter.The more 'general' epistles, those being the other seven booklets such as Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and The Unveiling all encountered some form of criticism and resistance in certain churches with only little reason given; however, it would seem to have been doubt about the suitability of their contents and/or authorship.These extant manuscripts were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled 'Antilegomena' (ie. against + to speak, not agreed to, disputed, etc.). Again, one of the main issues with regard to the booklets referred to as 'Antilegomena', was whether or not they were really written by those who were called their authors.Hebrews, for instance, bore no name of its author and differed in style from accepted - or acknowledged Pauline epistles; 2 Peter differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves 'servants' - as opposed to 'apostles'; again, instead of an 'apostle', the author of 2 and 3 John referred to themself as an 'elder' or 'presbyter' ; finally, Jude recorded apocryphal stories.And so, for reasons such as these, the booklets were not at once allowed their place in the canon. At the beginning of the fourth century they were received by most of the churches, and at the end of that century they were received by all. The choice of 'approved' booklets was largely influenced by their suitability for public reading, and so, it may be easy to see why these short letters were not often used for this purpose.The booklets listed by the council of Laodicea (363 CE) and the similar list agreed at the council at Carthage are identical with the church testament, with the exception that Laodicea's council omitted the booklet entitled The Unveiling.Now, while it may be said that the church testament canon was not the result of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical pronouncements, it no doubt grew in accordance with the needs of the church as a whole. The major factor governing selection was 'apostolicity' which is, of course, the position - or rather 'conviction', that the booklets represented the persuasion of the apostolic age.So then, number of canons aside, the lo down - in brief, is the selection of the church testament was made by the 'spiritual consciousness of godly people'. Who, it would seem, according to four different biblical canons of independent provenance, would rather not agree on exactly what the Father is saying.At least they're working towards finding out though ... Then again, there is much that mainstream theologians will disagree with each other about, and so, I think you may have said it best in Message 252 ...

quote:

---

ochaye writes

​

Christians and mass membership never go together. Many are called, but few are chosen, and Christians never seek mass membership, but are, by contrast, very fussy indeed about who they allow into their fellowship, as apostolic warning requires them to be.

---

However, that's not to imply it matters to me - one way or another, if self-identified 'christians' reference me as one of the same, as I could care less.After all, before I was formed, the Father already picked out a name for me. Oh no, no, no ... thank you (and I mean it!)In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...

​

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hello arch - hope things are well with you .. How can anyone be 'lying' or 'hiding information' when they aren't informed - none of our popular concepts of hell can be found in Joshua's teachings.Our most influential concepts of hell come from the same place that purgatory did, which is the Roman Universal Church, Dante Alighieri and John Milton¹.The first step I might suggest in understanding Joshua's teaching's is to eliminate the stumbling block that the reactionaries who edited the common bible introduced by indiscriminately translating three different words in those various manuscripts as 'hell': sheol, hades, and Gehinnom or Gehenna. Matter of factly, the Anointed One and his brother James are the only souls within the entirety of the greek manuscripts to employ the word Gehinnom.Gehinnom is an actual location in the TaNaKh, being derived from a valley near Yerusalem which originally belonged to a man named Hinnom. Scholarship suggests the word's a transliteration of the 'Valley of the Sons of Hinnom' and that valley had a long history - with all of it ending badly, which included being the location of various child sacrifices to Moloch back in the good ol' days of Ahaz and Manasseh, in the original manuscripts the Yuhdeans possessed.So, being that Gehinnom is a proper name like 'Rio Grande Valley', the redactor had no business translating the word as 'hell'. Perhaps every 'christian' could study these things, considering - as is evident, the two words have nothing in common and, fortunately, there are only a dozen Gehinnom passages.Forced theological assumptions pertaining to the fiery eternal damnation of us wicked heathens has done more than its fair share of unfathomable damage in the realm of religious traditions. Indeed, while untold millions of people have made great attempts to obey what they have been told is God - out of the pure terrorism of an abstract concept of Gehinnon, other untold millions have turned their backs on the Father because of this same false sense of 'hell', as described by sources provided by the Roman Universal Church and its proselytes, as well as, later Protest movements that sustain its perverse theology.In all fairness, the initial use of the term Gehinnom - attributed to Joshua, was actually it's first time being employed within the context of an inspired writing. It seems rather significant that the word did not even occur once in the greek Septuagint, allegedly quoted by Joshua and his brothers. Yochanan the Immerser - who's depicted preaching a baptism of repentance to even the most wicked of Yuhdeans, is not alleged to have spoken it even once.What's more, Uncle Paul does not mention Gehinnom even once in any of the fourteen documents attributed to him and we have no witness to suggest that the authors of Peter's or Jude's booklets employed it. Finally, the author of John, who's alleged to have penned the manuscript taking that name - plus three epistles and the Unveiling, never employs it in even one single bingle instance.Now if Gehinnom or 'hell' truly reveals the horrific and terrible fact of an endless woe that so many are destined for, how does one then account for this bizarre silence? How is it possible, if those who learned from Joshua indeed knew the meaning of Gehinnom equated to the latter Roman invention of 'hell' - and believed it a part of the Anointed One's teaching, that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all? {crickets, crickets}When Joshua spoke of unquenchable fire in the booklet attributed to Mark in chapter 9 verse 43, he used language that his Yuhdean listeners would associate with the national judgments the Father was depicted as casting upon various nations within the original testaments that the Yuhdeans were in possession of. In fact, they had never heard such language used any other way and if you have, I contend it is not from any teaching in a common bible.So, when we read the word 'hell' and all kinds of sermon outlines and preconcieved dogma enter our minds, we may be wise to take note that none of these illustrations exsisted within the minds of Joshua's listeners, being that they had never before heard the word in inspired speech and all.Also, in order to better understand Joshua's first use of Gehinnom within the Sermon on the Mount, you may do well to consider the pronouncement attributed to Yochanan the Immerser at Matis 3:11,12 where it is written, "I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am — of whom I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.".Now consider - was this 'fire' the same fire that Malachi earlier spoke of in his booklet, as well as, the fire later referenced by Joshua ?May peace come upon you ..One Love ¹ ~ All of which borrowed from Greek mythology.Edited by Bailey, : additional comments ..Edited by Bailey, : modified subtitle relevancy

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary