And how has the St. Mary’s team done over those 5 decades, Bill? 
Hi TomS:
As my kids were growing up over the decades they were quite sports minded… All three developed as soccer players and hockey and ringette, in the winter months… All had their time playing on that field… The field originally was a natural grass, and then being upgraded to an artificial surface… and Artificial Track complex… It was the premier stadium for most outdoor competition in these parts… Over time the St.Mary’s Athletic Department became the University to beat in the Maritimes. A lot of football kids in the maritimes rose through the ranks of this Eastern conference to take their place in the CFL here in Canada… Hockey and Basketball, as well as other sports carried by Canadian Universities… A lot of kids come from other parts of the country to compete at the this level and to get recognition in Canadian Competition because of the “Numbers”… So, they are not only “Home Grown”… Kids… But when it comes to a discussion on this topic I’m not your guy to talk to, on this topic… The Atlantic Bowl is held here in November and the winner goes on to compete with the Western Central Winner at the next level… The St.Mary’s Huskeys have won at the University Finals… But, so have other Atlantic University Football Teams… St. FX and Acaidia has put together some pretty good Benches… However, I don’t follow Football as much as I follow Hockey or Soccer… 
Bill…
| Quote (Guest @ Nov. 07 2006,10:06) |
| In 70, Bill?
|
Yeah Tom - the events as described by Josephus eerily match the prophecies and 70 AD was in the lifetime of "...some of those standing here" as Jesus said it would be. So 70 AD. (Or CE, if you prefer)
| Quote (JasonBrianMerrill @ Nov. 08 2006,07:41) |
| feel like some bailey’s cream in coffee? Thats about the only drink i want right about now. |
Sounds too Starbucky for me!
I was thinking more along the lines of Joe’s Tavern…
You can bring the girl along too, I think it’s open mic night, her singin’ sounds good …lol
keep shinin’
jerm
I put soda around my tomato plants.
D
| Quote (BillClarke @ Nov. 07 2006,07:41) | ||
Jeremy - as requested, My beliefs differ from yours in that I don't trust anything that came from Saul/Paul. He is my Number One candidate for the role of Antichrist. And, like most good liars, he mixes truth with his lies. I believe that Jesus was a man who achieved such spiritual perfection that His personhood and the divine that exists within Him (and within all of us) became One. He shows us the way and, in that sense, is Our Saviour but acceptance of Him as some sort of 'personal Saviour' is a conceit of man. I believe that Jesus spoke truth and, according to what He said, returned in 70 AD at the Fall of Jerusalem. The "Second Coming' that so many are waiting for has already happened. I believe that the Bible needs to be read and assessed the same way that one reads and assesses any information - based on a hierarchy of credibility; it is not (and was never intended) to be accepted 'whole cloth'. I could go on, but I suspect that you get the gist. Bill. |
As far as your canisiate for the antichrist. Paul.
The more I read his account, and the stern warnings of Jesus in Matthew Chapter 24... it certainly lends creditablity to that theory.
The whole account of how he saw Jesus in the desert when Jesus specifically said he will not return until he comes in the cloud at the end of days.
And the more I read Acts and all the "miracles" Paul did as apposed to the others who were present at pentecost...it raises more and more suspicion.
I am curious as to what particular references either in or out of the cannon you have used to form the hypothesis.
keep shinin'
jerm
| Quote (BillClarke @ Nov. 07 2006,18:19) | ||
Yeah Tom - the events as described by Josephus eerily match the prophecies and 70 AD was in the lifetime of "...some of those standing here" as Jesus said it would be. So 70 AD. (Or CE, if you prefer) |
Jeepers, I thought this thread had died.
Anyway, BillC, if in 70, then shouldn't a few things have happened since then? All that apocalyptic stuff?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Anyway, BillC, if in 70, then shouldn’t a few things have happened since then? All that apocalyptic stuff? |
I’m curious too Bill. Surely John did not believe Revelation was simply the Fall of Jerusalem and not the whole world? I mean at that point they did have an idea of locations outside of their own little piece of dirt right?
D – being open minded…
Bill?..uh Bill?
We are waiting patiently. 
keep shinin’
jerm
coughcough**
I guess we’ll have to wait for the book guys…
Sorry, sorry - been away again.
Just quickly - off the top of my head - I reject the Book of Revelations. It was not written by John, at least not the John who wrote the Gospel by that name. Its Greek is sloppy and pedestrian whereas John’s Greek is poetic and fluid; the author of the Gospel of John never refers to himself in the first person whereas the author of Revelation does so constantly; and I share Martin Luther’s opinion that there is nothing ‘Christly’ in the book at all. (Martin Luther argued that it should NOT be included in the Bible). It is possible that early Christians held the key to understanding the book but it has been lost and now the book can be made to mean anything. A book that can mean anything in reality means nothing.
I suspect that the Diotrephes referred to in 3 John is a thinly veiled reference to Saul/Paul. But the source of my nomination of him as Antichrist has more to do with reason than reference. Think about it: if you wanted to destroy Christianity in its infancy which would be the better route: attack its followers directly (as he did as Saul) or gain a position of prominence within it and pervert its message?
Well, it certainly is anunusual reading, Bill.
| Quote (BillClarke @ Nov. 22 2006,06:10) |
| I suspect that the Diotrephes referred to in 3 John is a thinly veiled reference to Saul/Paul. But the source of my nomination of him as Antichrist has more to do with reason than reference. Think about it: if you wanted to destroy Christianity in its infancy which would be the better route: attack its followers directly (as he did as Saul) or gain a position of prominence within it and pervert its message? |
I agree.
And others have stated here that the many of the epistiles weren’t wrtiten by Paul anyway.
I would like to know were that information comes from so that I may research it too.
I have taken considerable time in looking at the account of Paul in the desert. And have found that based on the “character” of God, the account isn’t simular to ALL the other accounts of when God speaks to people.
God never appears to a sinner (aceept with Nebecanezzar) unless previously prophecied by a man of God.
I’m not agreeing entirely that he is th antichrist but there certainly evidence that would point one in that direction.
Anything you could add for me scriptures, text, authors, would be apprecieated.
keep shinin’
jerm
| Quote (jeremysdemo @ Nov. 22 2006,13:42) |
| I agree. And others have stated here that the many of the epistiles weren't wrtiten by Paul anyway. I would like to know were that information comes from so that I may research it too. I have taken considerable time in looking at the account of Paul in the desert. And have found that based on the "character" of God, the account isn't simular to ALL the other accounts of when God speaks to people. God never appears to a sinner (aceept with Nebecanezzar) unless previously prophecied by a man of God. I'm not agreeing entirely that he is th antichrist but there certainly evidence that would point one in that direction. Anything you could add for me scriptures, text, authors, would be apprecieated. keep shinin' jerm |
Jeremy,
I don't think I can really help you there. It seems as though you are asking for 'scholarship' on the issue and, while there may be a wealth of material available on the subject, I am not aware of it - because that isn't how I come to it.
Frankly, I've long been suspicious of 'scholarship'. I suspect most scholars determine first what they think then find the facts and references that support their position. That may be a valid path to truth, but I don't think so.
I start with Jesus. What He said; what He did. I try to look at the Christ in isolation from His interpreters (like Paul) and see where that takes me. You may recall that I attempted to 'push' you in that direction some time ago in discussing the timing of the second coming. Jesus said: soon, within one generation, some of those standing here will live to see it. What if He spoke the truth? Where does that take you?
That is the essence of my method: assume Jesus meant what He said and see where that leads me. It may not be scholarly but it is very instructive.
And it is surprisingly threatening to many steeped in the 'Christian tradition'. One would think that Jesus' words would be a fine place to start - regardless of one's opinion of Paul. I mean, if we take Christ seriously surely we can look at Him without the focus Paul provides without fear of falling to the wayside. But the very idea of setting Paul aside in considering Christ is so anathema to many/most 'Christians' that they can/will not contemplate it. That is how thoroughly Pauline thought has insinuated itself into the 'Christian' perspective. I find this particularly perplexing among so-called Protestants since rejection of the need for an intermediary between us and Christ is the very essence of Protestantism. Why then should we need Paul? Can't Jesus be enough? Is He so weak that He cannot stand on His own?
Seek the contradictions in the Gospels. Look closely at the places they do NOT agree - the journey begins there.
Bill,
I just wanted to say that I appreciate your writings on here and perhaps more importantly the delivery is made in such a way as to not invoke arguments. While I am not sure I can agree with you on everything because I don’t have the knowledge or insight, your approach does get one to thinking. I do believe there is a God and I believe Jesus Christ is real. However, so much time has passed since His time here and so many others have attempted to convey the tale through the generations, one HAS to wonder if some of the information has not been diluted or doctored along the way.
I was just outside a while ago looking up at the sky as I like to do on these cool, crisp autumn nights and thinking. Just thinking about how small and insignificant our little blue planet appears to be when taken in context of all that is out there. That is just stuff I can see with my naked eye! How small we are compared to the rest of the universe. IF we are the only life existing, it is reasonable in my mind to assume that some “thing” put us here for some reason. As far as we know, we are unique in all the known universe. Not only do we live and exist, we have intelligent properties (that might be debateable) we also have something inside us that makes us different from other life here. WHY? I cannot believe that this extra “thing” is just an evolvment over time. I’m not sure why, but I just can’t buy into it. I believe evolution is real at a certain level, but I don’t think that certain “thing” that makes “me” me and “you” you is a product of evolutionary selection or chance. Does that make sense?
I am inclined to agree with Dawkins (see other thread…) that “God” may be something that we simply cannot comprehend at His/Her/It’s level. There just has to be more to this thing than we have the ability to understand. Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking words.
D
Thanks Bill,
That’s pretty much where I was anyway. Looking at the words of Jesus and how they differ from Pauls.
And the many other differences in the accounts as well.
It is an intersting journey…into the personage of this man.
BTW I like your description of Savior, who showed the way, better than the one presented by Christianity.
I think it was Bubba, and Toms who said many of the epistiles weren’t written by Paul anywho.
Keep shinin’
jerm
| Quote (Diogenes @ Nov. 22 2006,23:35) |
| Bill, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your writings on here and perhaps more importantly the delivery is made in such a way as to not invoke arguments. While I am not sure I can agree with you on everything because I don’t have the knowledge or insight, your approach does get one to thinking. I do believe there is a God and I believe Jesus Christ is real. However, so much time has passed since His time here and so many others have attempted to convey the tale through the generations, one HAS to wonder if some of the information has not been diluted or doctored along the way. I was just outside a while ago looking up at the sky as I like to do on these cool, crisp autumn nights and thinking. Just thinking about how small and insignificant our little blue planet appears to be when taken in context of all that is out there. That is just stuff I can see with my naked eye! How small we are compared to the rest of the universe. IF we are the only life existing, it is reasonable in my mind to assume that some “thing” put us here for some reason. As far as we know, we are unique in all the known universe. Not only do we live and exist, we have intelligent properties (that might be debateable) we also have something inside us that makes us different from other life here. WHY? I cannot believe that this extra “thing” is just an evolvment over time. I’m not sure why, but I just can’t buy into it. I believe evolution is real at a certain level, but I don’t think that certain “thing” that makes “me” me and “you” you is a product of evolutionary selection or chance. Does that make sense? I am inclined to agree with Dawkins (see other thread…) that “God” may be something that we simply cannot comprehend at His/Her/It’s level. There just has to be more to this thing than we have the ability to understand. Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking words. D |
It is a difficult thing, to let go of our child-like image of God as some sort of person - protector, judge, father-figure - we are taught that image from an early age and society promotes that image as the truth - even, perhaps especially, the non-theist portions of society. It is a comfortable and comforting image that we are reluctant to set aside.
The Universe is in a constant state of creation: everything is on its way to somewhere else. That is God.
The laws of Physics work everywhere in the Universe and it is a non-chaotic place (even if, at times, it seems otherwise to us); it is knowable and predictable. That is God.
We are all connected in some sort of ethereal way that we ‘sense’ more than we ‘know’. That is God.
We get past the idea of God as some sort of ‘being’ ‘out there’ - watching, judging, guiding - and begin to grasp that we exist within a reality that IS God. That we are fish and God is the Sea: in us, around us, US and not US. Inseparable.
Seek ye the Divine? It cannot not be found.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| …and it is a non-chaotic place |
That’s what Einstein said, and he spent the remainder of his life trying to prove it, and died with it still unproved.
Isn’t chaos and unpredictability on the microscopic level now accepted by science? (not becasue that’s the way it seems, but because that’s the way it is).
Or do gods only concern themselves with stuff big enough to really get your paws on?
Sounds like the description of “The Force” in Star Wars!
KF