Jesus chooses unlikely role models for His listeners

[Thomas]

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

No it was I, to put the Council of Nicea in context.

to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God...

Well critically that a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect, view, as I tried to point out. Nicea introduced nothing new ... it affirmed what was believed.

Remember it all came about because Arius' congregation — dockers, fishermen, the poor and working class — suddenly realised that what this guy was preaching was not the faith into which they had been baptised. They complained to the Bishop, who continually tried to reason with Arius, who would not be swayed. So, he was removed from his post. So Arius then got in contact with a political fixer he knew, and the rest, as they say, is history ...

that is where this 'i' was and the reference to Arian was; nice to see folk questioning religious belief

It always amuses me that people assume 'faith' requires a disconnection of the reasoning faculty. It's a complete nonsense.

Speaking from experience, my faith has been tested harder and more profoundly by my Catholic theology tutors than any question posed here or elsewhere.

Arius questioned, and got it wrong ... so did a host of others ... and so does Bishadi ... now, because none of them can agree amongst themselves (Bishadi, believe me Arius in no way believes what you seem to believe), this points to the fact that in the absence of the given doctrine, all manner of assumptions arise, according to the predeliction of the person in question.

If all the questions pointed in one direction, we'd have significant evidence to say the orthodox might be wrong, but as they don't, but tend to open the gates for everyone's favourite theory ... (both Arius and Luther bemoaned this very fact), then again that's a pretty sound indication that what we're dealing with is degrees of opinion, some informed, some ignorant.

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

Modern man tends to cast himself in the role of the Samaritan, overlooking the fact that he cannot save himself ... and concentrate on a critique of those who passed by ...

Thomas

To me, Thomas, when Jesus spoke this parable, I get a better painting of Jesus by not looking at it that way, but I have never come across your interpretation before. It seems to ignore the question that Jesus was asked in the first place. Here are some more of my ideas about the parable.

Philliph Yancey says,

The more unsavory the characters, the more at ease they seemed to feel around Jesus. People like these found Jesus appealing: a Samaratin social outcast, a military officer of the tyrant Herod, a quisling tax collector, a recent hostess to seven demons.

In contrast, Jesus got a chilly response from more respectible types. Pious Pharisees thought him uncouth and worldly, a rich ruler walked away shaking his head, and even the open-minded Nicodemus sought a meeting under the cover of darkness.

I [Yancey] remarked to the class how strange this pattern seemed since the Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the people most suspicious of Jesus on earth. What has happened to reverse the pattern of Jesus' day? Why don't sinners like being around us?

Here I can picture Jesus talking with a Samaritan, who Jews did not associate with. Here His character shines, and it resembles Baha'u'llah's. However, the story goes beyond that. The story is to answer the question "Who is my neighbor?" As Jack Miles would say, "In the context of Leviticus 19:18, 'your neighbor' is not defined as anyone you come across." We do not know the ethnicity of the traveler. It does not matter. For me that is the message. . .

As a Baha'i, if I were to play around with your interpretation, I would say that this "Salvific activity of Christ" appears in different persons throughout history, who all sit on the same throne, as the Bab taught, and are all the Samaritan in the parable that illustrates the manifestations attempt to save mankind, but man wishes to follow his own way.

 

[juantoo3]

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

That's fine, I just thought it peculiar that you suggest others look at the source material you posted, and the links you provided were irrelevent.

the information was that Thomas suggest the Nicene council was about Arius' interpretation .... to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God....

A significant part of the Nicene Council *was* devoted to the Arian controversy. That wasn't the only reason they gathered however. And the bottom line prevailing reason typically given was the clarification of contrasting opinions among the various sects in existence at that time. So ordered by Emperor Constantine.

I have a thread to this effect on the Ancient Lore and Mythology board called Rome in transition, where I spent a good deal of time looking at various cultural and political aspects of the early Christian movement as it moved from being a fringe group into being an outlawed and quasi-tolerated group until it achieved full political pardon and endorsement. Nicea was crucial to the later transition into political acceptance. I would invite you to bring this element of discussion there.

nice to see folk questioning religious belief

Thank you, but I am confused as it seems to me you are not so enamored of those who have come to different conclusions than yourself.

them link are from wiki.. not me

Then I will have to ask, did you copy and paste someone else's material without giving proper credit? If so, then I will ask that you please reference and credit your source material. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I presume you know how and why we ask that you do so. If not, any of the mods including myself will be more than happy to assist by explaining why this is necessary and how it is done.

most of the material work that shares real contest of faith will have a bit more currect 'evidence'

Ummm, I'm not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say. I wrote my Rome in transition thread where I did rather than on the Christianity board so that I wouldn't seem to be "in-the-face" of the Christian members here, even though I consider myself Christian for following the teachings of Jesus, even though I am a long time member and one I certainly hope is loved and respected here at CR, and even though I am a member that very much loves his brothers and sisters here all over the CR site including those I disagree with.

I think you may be laboring under the impression that a person can waltz in with a brand new revelation and change the minds of the world, or at least the little universe called Christianity, by your mere presence and words. I think you may fail to realize that institutional Christianity has been a working construct that is a sufficient truth for countless millions through the centuries, regardless of its lack of agreement with factual reality.

Christianity is a sufficient truth for conveying essential teachings that transcend the material world of reality and fact.

Stephen J. Gould, a reknowned paleobiologist and sometime atheist, pointed out rather succinctly (more so than I am able) that religion and science are two completely different "magisteria." They are two completely different paradigms for addressing questions. Science is concerned with the "how" questions, Religion is concerned with the "why" questions.

Trying to use one to overlord the other is like trying to open a can of beans with a banana, and makes about as much sense.

arXiv.org Search

I am not sure why you included this reference, but again it is completely irrelevent. What has a reference to evolution got to do with the subject at hand? By chance was this a mistake?

 

[juantoo3]

No it was I, to put the Council of Nicea in context.

Fondest Regards, Thomas.

As a courtesy I haven't put much effort into the history of the Nicene council and other associated aspects of Christian history on the Christianity board because of some of the conflicts it does raise, conflicts that seem to raise the hackles of otherwise decent Christians who are content with a simple spoon-fed version of the faith.

Out of respect I have skirted the issue, but I would appreciate your input as well in the Rome in transition thread, primarily to get a more thorough sense of the competing paradigms that comprised the earliest Christian church.

Well critically that a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect, view, as I tried to point out. Nicea introduced nothing new ... it affirmed what was believed.

I think you will find my arguments there a bit better supported if not well presented. While I can agree Nicea did not introduce anything new, I do not agree that it affirmed the *only* views believed at that time, Arius notwithstanding. To wit: the Coptic church, of which I learned while composing that thread, and who appear to hold views that seem to closely resemble my own, and for which there is an equal claim to time in existence with the Catholic faith established at Nicea.

Remember it all came about because Arius' congregation — dockers, fishermen, the poor and working class — suddenly realised that what this guy was preaching was not the faith into which they had been baptised. They complained to the Bishop, who continually tried to reason with Arius, who would not be swayed. So, he was removed from his post. So Arius then got in contact with a political fixer he knew, and the rest, as they say, is history ...

With all due respect, and that *is* a great deal of it, I think this is pretty well "a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect view," which I would prefer not to dwell on here as the details are better presented in context in the transition thread.

It always amuses me that people assume 'faith' requires a disconnection of the reasoning faculty. It's a complete nonsense.

Oh, absolutely! I agree 100%!

Speaking from experience, my faith has been tested harder and more profoundly by my Catholic theology tutors than any question posed here or elsewhere.

My faith is tested daily.

Arius questioned, and got it wrong ... so did a host of others ... and so does Bishadi ... now, because none of them can agree amongst themselves (Bishadi, believe me Arius in no way believes what you seem to believe), this points to the fact that in the absence of the given doctrine, all manner of assumptions arise, according to the predeliction of the person in question.

Do you view it as wrong to question? Or do you view it as only wrong to question authority?

If all the questions pointed in one direction, we'd have significant evidence to say the orthodox might be wrong, but as they don't, but tend to open the gates for everyone's favourite theory ... (both Arius and Luther bemoaned this very fact), then again that's a pretty sound indication that what we're dealing with is degrees of opinion, some informed, some ignorant.

Were the Orthodox correct with the Iconoclastic schism? How about the East-West schism? The Cadaver Synod?

I tread lightly here of respect, but there are boundaries too in which my own considerations have to take precedence. That the Orthodox position is the be all and end all, irrefutably so and infallible; I take issue with that. I do so as politely as I can muster, but I must respectfully disagree, as borne by the evidence of history.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

Philliph Yancey says ...

Such interpretations seem to me to reflect current cultural post-modern notions of Political Correctness, and anti-authoritarianism ... and is essentially humanist. It misses the point of Christ's redemptive activity altogether.

Jesus' relation to the Pharisees might not have been as one-sided as it seems. Remember also that Jesus had 'respectable types' amongst his followers — Nicodemus, as mentioned, and Joseph ... James and John came from an apparently well-heeled family of high social status, so I think this presentation of Jesus as siding with the underdog against the authorities as one sided ... Jesus came to save all, but certainly more was expected of those who have, than those who have not ...

Thomas

 

[Eclectic Mystic]

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

 

[Bishadi]

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

or what about the one I read today

'Atheism is a non-prophet organization'

 

[Thomas]

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

Indeed. Tragically, it's more likely — human nature being what it is — that those who sought his forgiveness were also those who crucified Him.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

A significant part of the Nicene Council *was* devoted to the Arian controversy. That wasn't the only reason they gathered however. And the bottom line prevailing reason typically given was the clarification of contrasting opinions among the various sects in existence at that time. So ordered by Emperor Constantine.

I agree… ‘so ordered’

Then I will have to ask, did you copy and paste someone else's material without giving proper credit?

Now this is the kind of BS that bugs me…


so let’s be clear; “nothing being shared is mine!” The story Thoth mentioned ‘light is life’.. well before me…………

NO one owns anything and will go to the grave empty handed no matter how tight we grib;

That possession of knowledge is what this fool will never appreciate or approve of until the end of time.

So nothing being mentioned is mine, created or made up; just revealed by observing enough material to comprehend what the truth actually is. That’s it!

If so, then I will ask that you please reference and credit your source material. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I presume you know how and why we ask that you do so. If not, any of the mods including myself will be more than happy to assist by explaining why this is necessary and how it is done.

Then be specific;

The Darwin thread became a fiasco but it seems much was conveyed even in the heat of battle (lessons learned from a car wreck).

Point being made is the sanchez and grau pubs were only to represent that ‘finally’ someone published a mathematical frame that shares how the genome can ‘evolve’ in a mathematical frame. Now what year was that? And how many knew that ‘evolution’ has never been perfected in math? And now there are a few who can actually look up material to see why; (planck was wrong)

So to share a reference of how planck is wrong, means either you need to know the math, or to share that entropy is questioned within experimental evidence.

There is so much depth that is being affected by the ‘truth’ as well not a single publication on this earth that will reveal all of the changes within one setting;

That is what the final chapter Understanding is for; that book of life.

So in one swoop, faith, science and answers to the questions the whole globe is awaiting comes from one thing “the revealing” and you so happen to be talking to the monkey who bumped into it and simply retained the integrity for decades all the while pursuing the fact to ground it.

Wasn’t my idea….. just trusted God, life and my absolute honor to be pure when addressing facts.

Nothing magical about it!

 

[Thomas]

... So nothing being mentioned is mine, created or made up; just revealed by observing enough material to comprehend what the truth actually is. That’s it!

... and you so happen to be talking to the monkey who bumped into it and simply retained the integrity for decades all the while pursuing the fact to ground it. ... just trusted God, life and my absolute honor to be pure when addressing facts.

Is this a declaration of infallibility?

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Is this a declaration of infallibility?

Thomas

heck no.... still just like you and any any man who walked this earth.

shorts, still yellow in the front, brown in the back...

but is the work that pure? Yep!

No fib coming from this corner when it comes to such material as 'what is life?'

As a kid a promise was made that never again will the kids have to go on without having a solid foundation to what makes us alive and what are the rules; so that each can simply Understand and live without all the inconsistancies of the gazillion tangents alive on this earth.

an idea on light and from there forward the rest is simply based on commitment; don't need a prize, nor any namesake; it was done as thanks for being alive.

and since the math is between my ears and no where else, then no one can own it; no government, no religion, no corporations; what is being convey is the precussor to the that last chapter and it is being shared all over the world as we speak;

it is that time..... there is no second guessing; existence only operates ONE way

how was it said in the pirates of the carribean...

"better start believing in ghost stories, Ms. Turner; cause you're in one"

what is funny is in all the religions they talk about a day when the truth will exist. Mention a good guy and a bad guy. Well the good guy, brings the truth and the bad guy is supposed to corrupt. Seems in reality each have the ability to corrupt all by themselves simply by fibbing, killing...etc..... and if a collective combine to corrupt, then see capitalism

but if the good guy was to bring knowledge that removes the needs of ever relying on religion as well share that much of what the religions shares in not only inconsistent and secular; then once people recognize this the religions will be over and them preaching, isolating, oppressive tenures will end; they will be out of a job; but then again some may get real upset when they remember 'how certain' them preachers were as they took money, time and the minds of the children for their own uses; they will be judged by their own line of whom they damaged.

So if a prophet saw, wow.... the churches are being destroyed... in a vision.. then it must have been because a 'bad guy' caused it.

The point is the 'good guy and bad guy' are literally ONE........

 

[Thomas]

heck no.... still just like you and any any man who walked this earth.

Yet you present your case as if it were infallible.

Then two things:
1 — It might well be that some things fall outside your scope of your science to make a determination. Christianity as a sacred science has a profound philosophical background that's studied and admired in secular circles the world over.

2 — I have no idea, in any meaningful terms, of what that position actually is. So far you seem to be pushing 'knowledge' — yet it is fair to say that faith does not preclude reason nor knowledge — and what is the content of this knowledge? Is it spiritual or secular? Inspired or empirical?

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Yet you present your case as if it were infallible.

Of mass and energy?; it is.

Zero DOUBT. Zero Possibility of ERROR.

As for me? a stoned cold brat. Where do you think the arrogance comes from? My good looks. could be but it isn't.

It is the fact that from Hawking to Dawkins, from the Pope to Einstein; all were looking but it was right in front of them the whole time.

And what is the best is no can OWN the truth; no one can stop it and this 'i' would just as soon kick the bucket then ever sell out.

it is why from Russia to China, the South Pacific to the north Atlantic and all the other countries and people on this globe; with the internet; the truth is spreading. It is growing and collectively the change will occur.

Think of yourself in Ptolemy's time and Copernicus (another good polock); yesterday the earth was the center of the universe and then humility set in when people began to understand; they were not the center of the solar system. A paradigm shift changed the world as it was one of the greatest periods for mankind in which the churches and beliefs could not stop the progress of the people to Understand.

Then two things:
1 — It might well be that some things fall outside your scope of your science to make a determination.

Always open to possibilities but in this case, since the form already exists which combines each branch of the sciences, validated in cross referencing each branch; it is possible some phenomens has not been addressed by there is no error in the framework of light.

Christianity as a sacred science

They can't spell science.

has a profound philosophical background that's studied and admired in secular circles the world over.

If you said Hindu and removed the word Christianity, then maybe. But the whole 'forgiveness from God' idea established in Christianity was the most corrupt and disallusional frame on this earth. It took responsibility from each person and made it a devil or some other entities fault for the actions people make. And then suggest; ah just ask Jesus to save you and ah.... you'll be saved....what a crock.

Evangelical and political entities created by Christianity are some of the most corrupt on this earth.

Have you ever watched on TV where people are wiggling on the floor because some dude slapped on the forehead and said; 'in the name of Jesus'

I would bet if Jesus was here today, he would kill himself just by seeing all the corruption and abuse of his teaching by the hypocrites of this sect.

It is the religions and what them 'science of Christian' folk did to faith and the minds of people that is some of the greatest mind abuse this earth ever had.

2 — I have no idea, in any meaningful terms, of what that position actually is. So far you seem to be pushing 'knowledge' — yet it is fair to say that faith does not preclude reason nor knowledge — and what is the content of this knowledge? Is it spiritual or secular? Inspired or empirical?

Thomas

Inspired by words left from many texts.

Secular in that the truth only operates ONE way.

Empirical; in that sciences and phenomema combine.

Spiritual in that; nothing can bend the truth.

Knowledge from the four corners of the earth; not just from this continent as well not from the 'institutional' frame of scholarly complacency to paradigm.

It was when the work was shared in 82' and none of the institutions it was sent too, could comprehend the work; so all institutional pursuits were ended.

The work, desire, and intent was all because of an absolute resolve to Understand, with or without, anyone's God, anyones teacher, and definitely without anyones money, compassion or trust; a single man made a commitment and the covenant is being fullfilled!

what is really cool is to find lineage to people like Roger Bacon who spend decades incarcerated for the same pursuit;


so don't ask me, why do ya drink,

why do you roll smoke

why must you live out that 'promise' that you wrote

well stop and think it over

put yourself in my unique position

if I get stoned and write all night long

well it's a,

family tradition
..................................

be certain, when the promise was made, i had no idea just what was to come

 

[juantoo3]

so let’s be clear; “nothing being shared is mine!”

So nothing being mentioned is mine, created or made up; just revealed by observing enough material to comprehend what the truth actually is. That’s it!

Unfortunately, the law of the land says otherwise. Likewise, when copying and pasting material from elsewhere without giving credit or reference is according to that same law an act of theft.

Then be specific;

Is this specific enough? Do not plagiarize. Have the scholarly courtesy of crediting and citing your sources.

And then join Thomas and myself on the Rome in transition thread...if you feel up to it.

 

[Bishadi]

Unfortunately, the law of the land says otherwise.

Don't follow laws of men. When one can die and take their property (or even memories) to the other side; then they can own it.

Likewise, when copying and pasting material from elsewhere without giving credit or reference is according to that same law an act of theft.

Bummer; Venti buying all them patents to reduce the pursuit of hydrogen in ICE motors is theft to the whole world.

Rule number ONE; any intellectual or patented property not in use or in the stage of release to the open public that is proven to be a benefit to humanity; is not to be held as proprietary....

Call NATO, call the president; they can all go to hell. From Russia to China, Cuba and Iran; when it comes to knowledge that is good for mankind; it's free.

Is this specific enough? Do not plagiarize. Have the scholarly courtesy of crediting and citing your sources.

Did the scholars have the courtesy in 82' when the material was put on their lap?

Have any of the institutional scientists assist in conveying the material or contributing time and energy for the truth with ZERO requisite of return?

NO because if they don't get the credit, they do not want to even hear about it......

Nothing of knowledge is proprietary or to be owned. and if you do not like it, then go jump in a lake.

Knowledge is about life and death. Screw the ownership and it is this ignorance stupid, selfishly derived mentality that has this globe still open with unanswered questions about what life is and a bunch of religions still fibbing as 2 powerhouse religions are about to cause global war...

sorry but that last post really chapped my hide

any one who thinks that knowledge is owned can go jump in a lake......

it is this exact reason why the data i use is from all over the world and from places most would never even think of; cause there are no borders to this fool.........

a rebel with a cause; the truth!

 

[Quahom1]

Don't follow laws of men. When one can die and take their property (or even memories) to the other side; then they can own it.

Bummer; Venti buying all them patents to reduce the pursuit of hydrogen in ICE motors is theft to the whole world.

Rule number ONE; any intellectual or patented property not in use or in the stage of release to the open public that is proven to be a benefit to humanity; is not to be held as proprietary....

Call NATO, call the president; they can all go to hell. From Russia to China, Cuba and Iran; when it comes to knowledge that is good for mankind; it's free.


Did the scholars have the courtesy in 82' when the material was put on their lap?

Have any of the institutional scientists assist in conveying the material or contributing time and energy for the truth with ZERO requisite of return?

NO because if they don't get the credit, they do not want to even hear about it......

Nothing of knowledge is proprietary or to be owned. and if you do not like it, then go jump in a lake.

Knowledge is about life and death. Screw the ownership and it is this ignorance stupid, selfishly derived mentality that has this globe still open with unanswered questions about what life is and a bunch of religions still fibbing as 2 powerhouse religions are about to cause global war...

sorry but that last post really chapped my hide

any one who thinks that knowledge is owned can go jump in a lake......

it is this exact reason why the data i use is from all over the world and from places most would never even think of; cause there are no borders to this fool.........

a rebel with a cause; the truth!

Intellectual rights, unfortunately from your perspective, has a very long arm of the law. And you take others down with you by ignoring the common courtesies (let alone laws of the land)...for instance, this forum. Yes, if one should continue to paste others' copyrighted material here without permission or acknowledgement of the "owner" (as dictated by law), this forum would cease to exist, and you and the curator of this forum would be subject to any infringement law suits that might be brought forth.

Even Jesus, acknowledged the authors of the old testament when making his point, and using their words...but more often than other, he expressed his own opinion and thoughts, while referring to what was said before...
(ten commandments into two, ring a bell)?

v/r

Q

 

[Bishadi]

Intellectual rights, unfortunately from your perspective, has a very long arm of the law. And you take others down with you by ignoring the common courtesies (let alone laws of the land)...for instance, this forum. Yes, if one should continue to paste others' copyrighted material here without permission or acknowledgement of the "owner" (as dictated by law), this forum would cease to exist, and you and the curator of this forum would be subject to any infringement law suits that might be brought forth.

Getting huffing and puffy about what.

Name something stolen? Did I steal from Thoth... the egyptian God of knowledge/writting; did I steal the idea that 'light is life' from him or was it Rah?

Even Jesus, acknowledged the authors of the old testament when making his point, and using their words...

Name one time jesus said thank to Isaiah for the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel for his...

but more often than other, he expressed his own opinion and thoughts, while referring to what was said before...
(ten commandments into two, ring a bell)?

Not a man alive conveys without the words learned from another. Do you understand the conveyance Jesus as quoted on what makes a man/women GOOD.

Mark 10:

17And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, `Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?'

18And Jesus said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God;

19the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.'

Sorry that was only 6 rules..... the injil...... as well he did not say...

i will not plagerize

or thout shalt notith doith thatith everithith

them the laws of mankind, thinking they own 'everything'

 

[Quahom1]

Getting huffing and puffy about what.

Name something stolen? Did I steal from Thoth... the egyptian God of knowledge/writting; did I steal the idea that 'light is life' from him or was it Rah?


Name one time jesus said thank to Isaiah for the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel for his...

Not a man alive conveys without the words learned from another. Do you understand the conveyance Jesus as quoted on what makes a man/women GOOD.

Mark 10:

17And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, `Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?'

18And Jesus said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God;

19the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.'

Sorry that was only 6 rules..... the injil...... as well he did not say...

i will not plagerize

or thout shalt notith doith thatith everithith

them the laws of mankind, thinking they own 'everything'

Actually, your original point was this: "Not a man alive conveys without the words learned from another as well you may be a little unlettered in you understanding of the conveyance Jesus is quoted on what makes a man/women GOOD."

I know a bit more than you think, but then I'm not out to prove anything either, so have your fun...lol, I'll be reading with great interest.

 

[Bishadi]

Actually, your original point was this: "Not a man alive conveys without the words learned from another

Words are how we share ideas. Ideas are conveyed in words.

No word have I used did I coin (create). Just as the ideas and words to convey the reality of what is true are not mine.

what is being shared is 'the conveyance of the truth' can be in words without the need of magic or phenomenon


each can understand equally with the proper words and not a one is was mine to begin with

 

[Quahom1]

Words are how we share ideas. Ideas are conveyed in words.

No word have I used did I coin (create). Just as the ideas and words to convey the reality of what is true are not mine.

what is being shared is 'the conveyance of the truth' can be in words without the need of magic or phenomenon


each can understand equally with the proper words and not a one is was mine to begin with

You cut your original statement short, again. You think you know more than others?