Dragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:38How do you know that to " remain awake" means meditation? Doesn't it just mean to remain awake??? Also doesn't watch and pray , it this context mean to watch and pray, this does not substantiate your meaning of meditation. The words are the words plain and simple. You specifically state these words to mean what you want!Kyoks wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 03:05You are right and thanks for the reply because it is very informative.Sahansdal wrote: ↑14 Jun 2019, 11:12
Another interesting thing about this passage is the mention of
'watch' and 'watching' in verses 38 and 40-41. This is meditation. They used the word "watch" in translation of 'gregoreo' for 'to remain awake.' It is "watch AND pray" so they are different, and have something to do with temptation. We call it now, "meditation." Notice that he came to the disciples three times, and Peter is 'denied' three times in his meditation in the Apocalypse of Peter, and "in this night" which is the time best for meditation. He was not concentrating sufficiently to see the inner vision of his Master and so was "denied" or 'reproved' (Apoc. Peter) three times, after he "came to them" three times, in their meditation, "in this night."
Masters of today (rssb.org) teach that salvation is not merely a gift, but of works. And that 'work' is meditation, so we must practice being focused on the Master in daily meditation. All scriptures are chock full of references to this. My first book covers much of it.
Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
NOTICE: The author of this book was invited to participate in the discussion in this forum about his book. You should expect that the author is reading and may reply to posts made in this forum.
While the forums typically have a rule against authors/publishers talking about their own book on the forums at all as a way to prevent spam, an author discussing their own book in the dedicated discussion forum about that book is an exception and is allowed, including posting would-be self-promotional links to his book or related material insofar as is relevant to the discussion.
However, other forum rules and standards, such as those requiring upmost civility and politeness, are of course still in effect.
- Dragonsend
- Posts: 638
- Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 105
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
- Latest Review: House of Eire by June Gillam
Re: Analyzing: What verse in this book would you challenge or defend?
- Dragonsend
- Posts: 638
- Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 105
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
- Latest Review: House of Eire by June Gillam
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters always have successors.Dragonsend wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 16:34 "He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Nobody ever claimed the Gospel authors were geniuses at quoting scripture. Why argue with me? Take it from A MASTER who knows, and does not guess > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-057-0.htmDragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters always have successors.Dragonsend wrote: ↑14 May 2019, 16:34 "He has raised his heel against me." His version would literally say He has raised Jacob against me. He then says no that meant James, then goes on to say no that's Judas. So the discrepancies in translation here are truly a stretch!! That was truly a head scratcher for me. And many places where it says that Jesus was talking about James. Or Judas. When it clearly says he Jesus. Just for clarity heel and Jacob have similar meanings.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
and when it is in stock, John > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-056-0.htm
The Masters are A FACT. I have seen two now. They are beyond telling magnificent and kind. There are over two million Sant Mat followers now, so it qualifies as a major religion, not that they are known as such or want to be. www.rssb.org Come to Petaluma July 30 and 31 to see a Master in person: Petalumaprogram.org
or email me at Judaswasjames at aol dot com You can ask any question of him you wish.
- Dragonsend
- Posts: 638
- Joined: 05 Mar 2019, 19:30
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 105
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dragonsend.html
- Latest Review: House of Eire by June Gillam
Thank you so much for the invitation. I was not trying to be argumentative I was only trying to make an observation.Sahansdal wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 17:46Nobody ever claimed the Gospel authors were geniuses at quoting scripture. Why argue with me? Take it from A MASTER who knows, and does not guess > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-057-0.htmDragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.Sahansdal wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 22:24
Some others here are agreeing with you on this, so I must set the record straight. I don't literally translate this verse! The Douay Rheims version is the best. It is an idiom. Only then can one see the real intent of the passage. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." It is a replacement dynamic, which only the Catholic Douay Rheims got right. The author may have known what he was doing with this double meaning, but it surely isn't meant to be a negative in the final analysis. This is a positive passage overall, about mastership succession. Judas covers the successor, who would naturally in the real world be the subject at this juncture, with 'Jesus' about to leave the scene. Masters always have successors.
See John 9:4-5 in the original C. Sinaiticus version with "sent US" in 9:4. 'When NO ONE can work' means even the Master!
and when it is in stock, John > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-056-0.htm
The Masters are A FACT. I have seen two now. They are beyond telling magnificent and kind. There are over two million Sant Mat followers now, so it qualifies as a major religion, not that they are known as such or want to be. www.rssb.org Come to Petaluma July 30 and 31 to see a Master in person: Petalumaprogram.org
or email me at Judaswasjames at aol dot com You can ask any question of him you wish.
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
My first book has whole sections on this. https://www.amazon.com/Bible-says-Savio ... ler+robertDragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 19:30Thank you so much for the invitation. I was not trying to be argumentative I was only trying to make an observation.Sahansdal wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 17:46Nobody ever claimed the Gospel authors were geniuses at quoting scripture. Why argue with me? Take it from A MASTER who knows, and does not guess > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-057-0.htmDragonsend wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:57
I am sorry I understand what an idiom is. "For even the man of my peace, the one whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Sorry even with the word supplanted, the tense of this sentence and with the previous line still makes this negative.
and when it is in stock, John > http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-056-0.htm
The Masters are A FACT. I have seen two now. They are beyond telling magnificent and kind. There are over two million Sant Mat followers now, so it qualifies as a major religion, not that they are known as such or want to be. www.rssb.org Come to Petaluma July 30 and 31 to see a Master in person: Petalumaprogram.org
or email me at Judaswasjames at aol dot com You can ask any question of him you wish.
I wasn't going to get into all the detail again. As you can imagine it is a complex subject. So long ago, such deep concepts. God would never leave us all so disadvantaged. That's why He sends Saviors, plural. Son is Holy Spirit not a person. No one but the Pauline Church ever said only one savior. It's a myth.
if you really don't want to buy it on Kindle or some other format, I think I can find the pdf. Email me/
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
esp1975,esp1975 wrote: ↑25 May 2019, 16:54 One of the important things to remember is that there have been over 450 different translations of the Bible put out in English. 450. Many Churches no longer use the King James versions because you have to remember, those versions were put out specifically as one of the ways to further separate the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church.
But I do wish Wahler has stuck with one single translation of the Bible for most of his points. Or, in many cases, it could have helped make his arguments stronger if he had shown the different interpretations of certain passages in multiple versions of the Bible. King James, New King James, NIV, English Standard, New Living Translation, New American, etc.
But most scholars use the New Revised Standard Version, and so, if he really was trying to make a point to Biblical Scholars, that is the version he should have used throughout.
I used to have a youth group pastor who was an actual Biblical scholar. One of the things I appreciated about him most was that he would often point out the different translations of particular Bible verses and talk about why each of those could be thought valid based on the original language the book was written in. And then he would talk us through the verse to think about it and determine which translation we thought was the most accurate.
But based on the original question, I don't know if there is a Bible verse presented that I would defend or challenge Wahler's interpretation of, because I am not a Biblical scholar and do not speak ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, or any of the other languages the original Bible books were written in. I would most challenge his assertion that further study of the New Testament cannot progress until HIS interpretation is accepted as true. As someone who works in academia (though not an academic myself), I can tell you, that is not how it works with things like this. There should always be room to challenge any translation/version. Because there can't be growth and new study without that freedom - freedom the author is taking advantage of by not accepted the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as "true".
I didn't mean to say that MY interpretation is the only correct one, but that the realization of Judas as sacrifice and as a stand-in for James is the way forward. My goal is to see progress toward complete understanding, which is only possible with a mystic interpretation, since that is what spirituality is. I wasn't first to suggest something going on with Judas as James. That was Dr. Eisenman. I just pursued it to its logical conclusion. James was successor.
- Crazyreader01
- Posts: 220
- Joined: 01 Feb 2019, 09:20
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 45
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-crazyreader01.html
- Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
Sometimes the context is extremely important and taking it away can prove dangerous. It's a very thin line that shouldn't be crossed.diana lowery wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 06:29 I have not yet read the book, but I appreciate the fact that your past teachings were challenged and that you are willing to give this new interpretation consideration. Based on the verse that you mentioned, I would have to say it looks like taking away the context changes the meaning entirely.
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
John 14:7 always come immediately to mind. Right after, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" he tells us who he was addressing. It wasn't you or me.Crazyreader01 wrote: ↑08 Jul 2019, 13:17Sometimes the context is extremely important and taking it away can prove dangerous. It's a very thin line that shouldn't be crossed.diana lowery wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 06:29 I have not yet read the book, but I appreciate the fact that your past teachings were challenged and that you are willing to give this new interpretation consideration. Based on the verse that you mentioned, I would have to say it looks like taking away the context changes the meaning entirely.
- Areej Tahir
- Posts: 349
- Joined: 05 Jan 2019, 04:03
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 43
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-areej-tahir.html
- Latest Review: Solaris Seethes (Solaris Saga book 1) by Janet McNulty
So true. This shouldn't happenbb587 wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 19:36 My husband has recently started reading the bible. He's pointed out quite a few biblical quotes that are taken out of context. Matthew 5 is one that stands out in my mind. Any sentence in that section could be taken out of context and misconstrued to make a different point.
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Every Christian does it. John 14:6 is the best example. John 3:16 another. The SON is the Spirit, not Jesus. And he was speaking in real time to his own followers, who were not US.Areej Tahir wrote: ↑16 Jul 2019, 09:05So true. This shouldn't happenbb587 wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 19:36 My husband has recently started reading the bible. He's pointed out quite a few biblical quotes that are taken out of context. Matthew 5 is one that stands out in my mind. Any sentence in that section could be taken out of context and misconstrued to make a different point.
- dorebri2020
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 09 Jun 2019, 20:14
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 25
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dorebri2020.html
- Latest Review: Island Games by Caleb J. Boyer
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Which one did you mean? I mention two: John 3:16 and 14:7.dorebri2020 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2019, 09:35 While I cannot say that I understand the full versatility of verses, I can certainly say that the change you mentioned above distorts the true message of what that verse originally said. Therefore, it makes me question the sanctity of the passage or of the message this book is trying to share.
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Mrudolph30
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 30 Dec 2018, 22:42
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 8
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mrudolph30.html
- Latest Review: Burn Zones by Jorge P. Newbery
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: 15 Jul 2018, 22:12
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Christians are the world champs at quoting out of context. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" comes easily to mind. Read the next line for context.Mrudolph30 wrote: ↑22 Jul 2019, 21:34 The idea of quoting out of context permeates many areas of modern news too. I'm a sports follower and many times journalists take a part of an athlete's quote out of context to write a provocative headline and get lots of page views. I think the only solution is to always be wary and search for the whole original quote before judging someone's paraphrasing of it.