Yuku free message boards

>>>I can't imagine the creator of all things having need to pray to anyone!<<<

Jesus said that he did not need to pray, but that he was praying for the benefit of those who heard (at Lazarus' tomb). God does not need to speak from heaven, he does so for *our* benefit.

Now, in the ideal, a child believes his father's words even before the child has the ability to test the truth of these words for himself. But, this ideal has long since passed, when man bought the lie that he should be his own arbiter of truth. It is only by man's pride that man's mind fails to learn the truth without guidance and correction, and instead he deceives himself with errors.

But, his errors were all committed before the Flood. Beginning with Abraham, God began doing things to compel the world to pay attention. Man threw away the God of common sense a along time ago; now we have to deal with riddles in the problem of literality. Whose literality shall we go with? Shall we short God on that, too? The entire Bible must be remiss, for it nowhere says blandly, "God did not became a man." It even says that God repented and then latert says that God does not repent, and then says God tempted Abraham and then later says that God tempts no man. There is no language fit for a narrow mind.

Man is not so much blind as blinded. Even though it is evil to discourage a child from thinking, and evil to force him to remain with answers that, by remaining with them, become as good as empty, the world would end tomorrow were every little child to be as "scientific" about what his father says as are atheist "freethinkers" about what the Bible says. A good father seeks to delegate his authority to his children. But, he will cease to delegate his authority to those children who, in caring more for being delegatees than in understanding what their father means by his words, say to their brothers whom they are arguing with over what they think their father said, "Daddy said so, so I'm right and you're wrong!" Some people press their dogmas in such a way that implicitly asserts, "If God wanted us to know something more than what he has made explicit, then he would have made it explicit". You won't find that law in the Bible, so that assertion contradicts itself. The fact is that the Law states, concerning animal sacrifice, that, "and his sins shall be forgiven him". The Jews eventually took this as literally as it could logically be taken, and so they did not see its message. An animal is to a man what a man is to God. For Israel, God did all things as God, that is, all things which meant anything to us as being done by might, by power, and by authority. Then, when no more could be done in this which had not already been done (that is, in the fullness of time), God became flesh and met our needs as one of us: God did everything that meant anything to us as we are. God showed us all empathy, rather that all power or all authority, by becoming a man. Ball became red. But, God the 'Father' would be misrepresented were a man to say of his own self "I am the Father." This man Jesus was a perfect man. That was the message. God fulfilled all the law.

'Father' is a title implying 'the source of power and authority'. God needs no name. God called 'Father' refers to the transcendence of God; God outside the creation. The scriptures are clear on this. Like a human father prior to when that human has children. The father, in either case, is not defined as 'he who has children', but rather as 'he who is, and who can have children'. The nature of the father, in either case, is not that of fatherhood, but that of the nature of the one who has children; The child does not say that the nature of his father is that of the fact that his father has a child, but rather that his father is the authority and the power.

Everything God says and does is designed to force men, over time, to realize that they are the one's being tried, and to show them that they have, even from the beginning, been guilty of every error. That God had not made all things plain from the beginning implies something about what God is up to, and that it is man who destroys the truth.

God became a man? "Nay", you say, "'tis not possible by definition." Too bland and empty a notion of literality, like a bull in a China shop with blinders on.

God=ball. man=red.

God is a spirit, without form.


Jesus is the name of the man, that red one. Jesus is the son of man whom God begot without a man. The truest son is essentially equal to his father, as Isaac was the "only" son of Abraham (Gen 22:16). No bland reading possible there.

Leave the bland to texts meant to be.