“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Regards
DL
I think you say that because I ask questions that disturb you.
I do not expect a reply to a new thread that I plan to post when time allows me to work it but you might find it too provocative as well.
Jesus as an enlightened man is half good. Jesus as Yahweh is evil.
Trinitarians have tied Jesus to Yahweh and Yahweh is demonstrably an immoral God. This tying of Jesus to Yahweh not only makes Jesus an idol worshiper like what most Christians have become, it also has Christians following an immoral ideology that includes homophobia and misogyny.
It was customary in ancient days to name God Father. Jesus followed this ancient custom. Jesus never named God because he was a God seeker and not an idol worshiper. Jesus also indicated that whatever God was named was an invention of religions and that is why he railed against religions and their idol worshiping rules which they claimed came directly from some God. Jesus’ word that said that the Sabbath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath indicate that he also would have said that God was created for man and not man for God.
When Jesus said that we should seek God, he meant it to be in the following internalized third eye opening way.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This was the way of the ancients for thousands of years, before Christianity and it’s idol worship came along, and was a superior way of seeking God. bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
It seems that the ancients sages like Jesus knew of our internal Father Complex, as described in modern days by Jung and Freud. That complex being our internal instincts, passed up to us by our paternal genetic line, and our instinctive guide to survival. It is what makes us seek to be the fittest of our species. This trait is undeniable as all animals have it. Women will of course have a Mother Complex.
Gnostic Christians have always thought of Jesus as an archetypal good man while ignoring the debate of his real existence or not. We called him Jesus the Good. We also called God, God the Good. That led us to see Yahweh for the vile and immoral demiurge that scriptures clearly show him to be.
Jesus, even though some of the policies put into his mouth by Rome are good, thanks to his no divorce and substitutionary atonement policies, just to name two, ends up not being a good Jesus as those policies are demonstrably evil and immoral.
This half good Jesus is a damned sight better man or God than Yahweh. Trinitarians do a disservice to Jesus if they associate or tie his name to Yahweh.
I think that Trinitarian Christians should take the Gnostic Christian point of view of Jesus being just an enlightened archetypal good man and not the vile and immoral demiurge that Yahweh demonstrably is.
I also think that, like non-believers do, Christians should seek their internal Father, as in Father Complex, — the way Jesus did, — and turn away from the idol worship that Christians now hold to. After all, Jesus said to seek God. He never said, seek me. He said he was the way and the way is quoted from scriptures above.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL
Eusebius wrote:
Christ had to be a spotless lamb who was crucified from the disruption of the world as the bible says.
Have you seen this link and what do you think of the notion that substitutionary punishment is not a good form of justice?
youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g … gest-vrecs
Regards
DL
“Foundation” is not a “very incorrect translation” at all. It is a correct translation.
Anyone familiar with Koine Greek knows that “καταβολη” literally means “that which is thrown down” or “that which is laid down.” And we all know that a foundation is clearly that which is laid down. I suppose if you throw something down, you could in that way be disruptive. But I think it is a stretch to thereby render the word as “disruption.” Why do you suppose that virtually all of the Greek experts and lexicons translate the word as “foundation”?
Which of the following would you consider to be the correct translation of Hebrews 11:11?
(1)“By faith, Sarah herself received power for the disruption of offspring even when she was past her time.”
(2)“By faith, Sarah herself received power for the foundation (or establishment) of offspring even when she was past her time.”
This verse is immediately followed by:
“Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.”
I don’t believe in Substitutionary punishment. I believe in Inclusion. I believe that when Christ was put to death that the whole human race was put to death. The old humanity was crucified. “If one died over all, consequently all died.”
If you go here: concordant.org/free-media-library/other-publications/ and scroll down the middle column, you can read about “Substitution or Inclusion.”
peace
Cool reply. Thank you. Please know that I am pleased to read your replies because I often perceive that you have arrived at several conclusions I have, with a difference being that what took me considerable effort to accomplish, you seem to do with ease!
I will be succinct in my reply so as to not divert this thread. What I have discovered in my own studies of katabole, the noun form of katabollo, is that it’s translation with, “foundation,” is not as certain as many think. Katabollo the verb form of katabole is derived from two Greek words, kata which means, “down,”’ and bollo which means “to cast” (as in “to violently throw something away from you”). So, katabollo, and hence its noun katabole, means to ‘down-cast’ which carries a negative connotation that is associated with the idea of destruction, an idea that is quite far removed from the idea of the concerted and positive effort put forth to lay a foundation, even as you alluded to in your reply.
Indeed, there is a word used in the Koine Greek of scripture, and in the Septuagint - as well as still being used in modern Greek - that means exactly what we mean when we say, “ foundation,” and that word is themelios.
I have done an exhaustive study on every place where katabollo, katabole and themelios appear in scripture and have concluded that a sleight-of-hand was employed in the translation of katabole, in exactly the same way that the first Latin translators deliberately mistranslated, aion, aionios and aiodios - aioin and aionios mean, “age-lasting,” while only aiodios means, “eternal.” I’m pretty sure that most everyone here have perceived that the Latin trickery used on these words resulted in support for the hell-based-theology that began in the middle ages and, through the efforts of Augustine of Hippo, eventually replaced the original universalisim of scripture.
Then I found that Origien had this to say about the mistranslation of katabole by the Latin translators:
“καταβολη, which has been very improperly translated into Latin by, “constitutio;” for in Greek καταβολη signifies rather,“dejicere,” i.e., to cast downwards… From this it follows, that by the use of the word a descent from a higher to a lower condition, shared by all in common, would seem to be pointed out” (De Principiis, III.4)
Well, I would say, “Because they want to!” 
The word katabole mostly appears in scripture joined to the word kosmos: katabole kosmos. This phrase was translated from the Latin as, “(the) foundation of the world.” Hence, through the force of repetition, it provides support for a train of thought that goes something like this:
"If Jesus Christ was the lamb crucified from the foundation of the world, and if His book of Life was written from the foundation of the world, and if we were chosen in Him from the foundation of the world, then it must follow that God knew that Adam and Eve were going to fall before He ever created them. Therefore, I am ultimately not responsible for my sin because God must have foreordained everything, through his foreknowledge, to be exactly the way it is from before He even created them. Indeed, for creating them knowing all this, it must have been His purpose, all along, for the world to be this way. Additionally, if I am among the elect because I walked the aisle (and cried and signed the 3x5 card), I am saved from hell, so, my sinning, now, is really only because God wishes to teach me a lesson. I’ve got my bases covered. The rest are going to hell, of course, which is sad, but at least I’m not, even if I sin.”
It’s amazing to me what the change in meaning for swapping a single word in just the right place can do to my thinking.
So, I must admit that I like, much better, the difference in my thinking that results when I read katabole kosmos translated correctly by the Greek scholar A.E. Knoch as, “(the) disruption of the world.” 
For I have seen in myself that the thoughts in me that find their origin in the phrase, “the foundation of the world,” lead me to the conclusion that Jehovah knew that Adam and Eve were going to fall before He created them. And, for some reason, based on my experiences, a large majority of people seem to really like this idea, even to the point of it becoming sacrosanct.
So, that is why, in my humble opinion, virtually all of the Greek experts and lexicons translate the word as "foundation:” for to mess with the phrase is to play with fire.
Well, I would have to say, “disruption!”
The phrase katabole spermatos means, the “disruption of sperm.”
Heb 11:11 …Sarah herself received dunamis (power) to, “disrupt seed,” katabole spermatos.
We now know that the process of conception involves the, “death,” of that lucky male sperm and the subsequent catabolizing or, “breaking down,” of it, once inside the ovum, in order to release the DNA.
And it shouldn’t seem strange that something like this knowledge of how a human being is conceived could be known by the writer of Hebrews because it was known that, “…If a kernel of grain, falling into the earth, should not be dying, it is remaining alone, yet if it should be dying, it is bringing forth much fruit” (John 12:24 CLV).
Thus the writer of Hebrews, for understanding this, exults in the miraculous ability of an old woman to receive the power to disrupt her husband’s sperm because, from the child of promise, came the lineage of the Hebrew race and, ultimately, the Savior of All Mankind, Jesus Christ, LORD of All and Conqueror of Death! Halleluiah!
And that is why I say, be good!
It is, after all, what we were all created to be!
Dennis!
I am not surprised that you think you are dead and that your demiurge would destroy his perfect works.
Nothing quite like believing that a genocidal son murderer is somehow good. Only a dead mind would follow such a demonstrably immoral God.
Regards
DL
Now you see, [tag]Gnostic Bishop[/tag]? You’ve turned a perfectly civil response from Eusibius into an excuse for suggesting that Eusibius worships as “good,” this “genocidal, son-murdering” god. He clearly said that he doesn’t posit substitutional atonement and yet you see fit to throw insults his way. This is your third strike. You’re banned for one month. [tag]JasonPratt[/tag]
*** General Notice for thread participants **
Please don’t ask Gnostic Bishop any questions or talk about him/her in public until this ban expires. GB/DL is not here to answer or defend, so it would be unfair to discuss him/her during this absence.
Are you saying he is not following bible God?
Regards
DL
I am saying that you were not available to participate in conversation until your ban expired, and that it would be unfair to talk about you or to expect you to answer questions until your return.
Eleutheros, which of the following would you consider to be the better translation of 2 Maccabees 2:29 (from the Septuagint)?
For as the master builder of a new house must be concerned with the whole construction, while the one who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with us.
For as the master builder of a new house must be concerned with the whole disruption, while the one who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with us.
Heb 11:11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive(katabolen), even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. NAS
11 By faith Sarah herself also obtained power for the disruption(katabolen) of seed, and brought forth beyond the period of her prime, since she deems the Promiser faithful. Concordant
Disruption of seed? Really?
This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
“I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES;
I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” Mt 13:35
Every occurence(10) of “katabolen” occurs in the phrase “since the foundation of the world”, except in Heb 11:11. The verse in Hebrews, for me, excludes “disruption” as a proper translation for katabolen.To me, it seems forced in the Concordant to agree with Knoch’s theology.
Also, Eaglesway, it could be correctly translated as “since the construction of the world.”
Strong’s
A laying down
Short Definition: a foundation, depositing, sowing
Helps Word Studies
2602 katabolḗ (from 2596 /katá, “exactly according to,” down from the most general to the most specific detail, “following all the way along,” and 906 /bállō, “to cast”) – properly, a foundation, cast according to a blueprint (original design); the substructure which determines the entire direction (destination) of all that follows; the foundation-plan, upon which the entire super-structure is built; (figuratively) the beginning (founding) that purposefully designs all that follows.
Yes, perhaps so, but I think “foundation” and “conception” get closer to it. Conception bearing the DNA of the thing to come. Foundation being the sub-structure, as stated in the above, which is certainly part of the construction, but is a specific element of it.
To lay a foundation, you need to dig down (in that country, in that time) to the underlying bedrock–you needed to “disrupt” the earth. I’m no linguist, and I’m just guessing here, but disruption always comes before building a house with a secure foundation. You can lay down a pile of rocks and build on that too (in warm climate on relatively solid ground), but ideally you will dig down and either create a “rock” by pouring a slab with a bell footing, or by building a basement, or in some places, by driving piers deep into the soft, swampy ground. These all involve disruption before construction can begin. Not saying Jesus had this in mind as a metaphor, but as you know, ALL language IS metaphor, and maybe this word you’re discussing is a metaphor for the process of creating a proper foundation for a building. As such, perhaps it first came from ‘disruption’ even though it eventually came to mean ‘construction’ or ‘foundation’ or ‘conception.’ What do you think?
Well yes, Cindy, in your example of constructing a house you need to “disrupt” or dig into the earth in order to lay the foundation.
But in this case, it is the earth itself that was constructed! “Before the construction of the earth.” So what was there to dig into, in order to lay the foundation of the earth?
I’m just speculating about the origin of the word, not taking it literally as it might apply to any particular passage. Once it’s come to mean whatever the contemporaneous meaning of the word was/is, that’s what it means to the writer. If Moses wrote Genesis, then he would have used the language at it’s current state to mean what it meant to him and to his readers. So while it might have started out meaning “disrupted,” by Moses’ day, it may well have come to mean constructed and/or conceived.
For example, “thrawan” means “to turn” in (if I remember right) ancient Welsh. Linguists speculate that it came to apply to throwing an object because one often puts a twist into the throw, whether intentionally or not, thus sending it spinning through the air in a more or less linear trajectory. Until you think about that “twist,” that linear path seems almost a contradiction to the word’s ancestor. On a different path, the same word describes (in the USA at least) a potter forming the body of a vessel-to-be on his wheel. In the case of the potter’s art, the same word has a meaning much more evocative of the parent word.
That said, if you want to take it absolutely literally (insomuch as it’s possible to do that using human language), I could say that the fabric of whatever was present (since in Genesis, the sun and stars were created after the earth) would have been disrupted. If it was nothing, then the nothing (such as it was–or was not) was certainly disrupted or at least, abolished/banished/or whatever happens when nothing ceases to BE (or not be) nothing. I wouldn’t actually make that argument, though. It seems to me inherently incoherent, but even if it’s not, I think this is more likely a case of using language at its current meaning to the writer, just as we do today.
Cindy, I don’t understand how Genesis is related to the discussion. The word under discussion is the Greek word “καταβολη.” It occurs 11 times in the New Testament. It doesn’t occur in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament of course, since it is not a Hebrew word. Even in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek, the word does not occur at all.
In Genesis 1:1, “God created the heavens and the earth,” the Hebrew for “created” was translated as “εποιησεν” in the Greek Septuagint. That Greek word means “made” or “produced.” It doesn’t means “disrupted,” and has never been translated as such.
I wasn’t paying close attention to your discussion, Don–sorry about that. Just commenting on my speculation on the word itself and I (obviously mistakenly) figured you were talking about the Genesis creation account. Either way, I would have said the same. Unless you know what the word’s contemporaneous meaning was, you have to make a judgment based on context and on the knowledge you do have. You may turn out to be right–or wrong. Or a little of both. If scripture were infallible and absolutely perfect in every way (including transcription and translation), we and our human interpretations would still negate that perfection by getting it wrong at least as often as we get it (sort of) right.
Heb 11:11 shines at least a little light on the question, that is why I lean towards “conception” or “foundation”. when there is little evidence, to me what evidence there is should bear some weight on the question. I dont see construction or disruption fitting the verse concernng Sarah and the conception of Isaac.