JB...


Your defensive posturing serves only to defeat it's own purpose.




What I said is above.


What you said is below.





Ok I will repeat... once again.




What this means is that when you twist my words and add to them, you change the meaning. Add to this the fact that you then argue with your own misinterpretation of what I said, and what you come out with is you arguing with yourself, while I am trying desperately to clarify the misunderstanding.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I know you didn't mean that to be funny but it is.
Who's on first?

Ah Zap... your sense of humor stayed the same even though your avatar name changed...

Oh really? My "defensive posturing?

Are you attacking me again?
Do I need defensive posturing?

If you can recall, I gave up my entire position. Do you recall?
Here it is again:

"I surrender all of my ideas. Forget about them. Wipe the slate clean. I know nothing. I have no proof to support anything. I made them all up with my imagination. THEY ARE JUST IDEAS.

Now Creative, tell me how it is. Endow me with your great and powerful knowledge and wisdom. I am eager to learn what you know about truth, the nature of consciousness, the universe, God, this reality, how it works, where it comes from...all of that.

Just tell me what you think is truth. Tell me what you believe and why. Forget about what I believe. What I believe does not matter. It is not important. It is only for me, it is not for you.

If you don't want to tell me I will understand. But understand this, all of what I have said are my IDEAS. That is all they are. IDEAS. They are nothing I will defend or fight for.

So if you don't want to discuss your beliefs, I am fine with that. If you don't want to discuss mine I am fine with that.

I don't care "how I sound" to you or anyone. I just put my ideas out there for anyone who wants to consider them, laugh at them, make fun of them, question them or whatever they want to do.

Peace to you.

Why express like this? Why say "Oh really?"...



This is exactlt what I am referring to. I would have had to have attacked you the first time in order to attack you again... neither has been the case.

Thus, your needless defensive posturing.



This only sounds quite personal to me as a result of what you wrote further, which is below.



This is self explanatory. Quite clearly based in sarcastic ego.



If the above sarcasm were not there, this would have been taken as genuine. As a result of the sarcastic tone of the post though, I do not have the ability to distinguish between what is genuine and what is based in sarcastic ego.



I have been attempting to.



Sarcasm and degrading comments do not lead one to believe that a conversatiob is being had in good faith.



I believe the underlined says enough, and if this is not what you intend to reflect, then why is it this way?

I have resorted to sarcasm because I am totally frustrated with trying to communicate my ideas with you.

You NEVER get to the point. I have no idea what you believe, or what your point or position is or even where you are coming from.

I am, however serious when I say I would like to hear what you truly believe and why, but I don't think that is going to happen.

It truly does not matter to me if you understand my ideas or not. Truly.

I do appreciate people who understand or want to discuss or consider mine or any similar thoughts or ideas. I do not claim any of them to be facts.

They are ideas, nothing more. They are probably of no use to anyone else. They are really not important and I am finished discussing them....with you anyway. It is just too difficult to communicate with you.

JB

This is just not true. You have attacked me plenty of times on a personal level. It has always been some kind of competition with you. Ever since the very beginning when I told you my impression of your character and you disagreed with my assessment and tried to claim that I was all wrong about you when I was simply being honest about the impression I was getting and feeling.

I have never been able to make any sense out of your posts or your beliefs or much of anything you post. This puzzles me and this is why I engage you. I keep thinking I can bridge the gap where communication fails. I have decided I cannot. I am just going to throw in the towel.

I have decided to just give up.

JB

JB,

What you may not see, is my belief in the idea that you're ideas are important. Your path is yours to walk, for your own reason. Nothing could be more important.


I would like to see where I have attacked you plenty of times. This claim cannot be substantiated. You may find where I reacted to your sarcasm and demeaning nature towards me, but not a deliberate attack.

I have never deliberately attacked anyone.

That statement is a measure of your perception, which I have been repeatedly attempting to correct.

I want to specifically address the following statement, which is a good example of what I am addressing.



I believe, for some reason, that your intent here is genuine.

If you would, take note of the reflection from you regarding my response to your earlier reflection of my character.

It is underlined.

Your terminology invokes the understanding necessary to clearly address these reflections, which I still insist belong to you.

I tried to claim. Those four words could not be more truthful.

You disallowed my right to clarify your wrongful character assassination of me. In doing so, you dismissed not only my own testimony, but others' as well.

According to the current wording, you still maintain that what you believe about my character was and is accurate(true), and what had been attempted to be put forth as correction was false.

I did not take it personally, and still do not. I was(and still am) simply attempting to inform you that the reflection was not of me.

You did not allow the truth to contradict your assessment, which was obviously based upon something other than me.

It WAS NOT a "character assassination." That is just how you interpreted it. That is how you perceived it. (I thought I knew you better than I apparently did. I didn't ~~and I still don't!) My guess is that you are very self conscious and concerned about what others think of you.

I said that you "over think things." It still appears to me that you do.

It was never intended to be a "character assassination." It was a complete and total misunderstanding. It was a mistake to even attempt to give you my first impression of you. I don't know you well enough to even kid around with you like that, and I had no idea you would react the way you did.

Anyway there has been tension between us ever since. You have not gotten over that. I still cannot understand most of your posts. I still get very tense vibes from you. I'm sorry but I just don't feel the honesty, or the sincerity or the love from you. I feel tension and anxiety in our communications. You accused me of being egotistical, defensive, etc. when I think your are just seeing a reflection of yourself.

I am just getting very tired of the mental games that are involved in trying to communicate with you. I think we should just give it a rest. I'm tired and frustrated with it.

Peace.

As you wish...

Christ as Man

Christ's likeness to God, as set forth in the first chapter of Hebrews, is only introductory to the setting forth of His likeness to men, as in the second chapter of Hebrews.

His likeness to God, as in the first chapter of Hebrews, is the only basis of true understanding of His likeness to men, as in the second chapter of Hebrews.

And this likeness to God, as given in the first chapter of Hebrews, is likeness--not in the sense of a mere picture or representation--but is likeness in the sense of being actually like in very nature--the very "impress of His substance," Spirit of Spirit, substance of substance, of God.

And this is given as the preliminary to our understanding of His likeness to men. That is to say: from this we are to understand that His likeness to men is not merely in shape, in picture, or representation, but in nature, in very substance. Otherwise, the whole first chapter of Hebrews, with all its detail of information, is, in that connection, meaningless and misplaced.

What, then, is this truth of Christ made in the likeness of men, as given in the second chapter of Hebrews?

Bearing in mind the great thought of the first chapter and the first four verses of the second chapter,--of Christ in contrast with the angels, higher than the angels, as God,--we begin with the fifth verse of the second chapter, where begins the thought of Christ in contrast with the angels, lower than the angels, as man.

So we read: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subject under his feet. For in that He put all in subject under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we see not yet all things put under Him. But we see Jesus." Heb. 2:5-9.

That is to say: God has not put in subjection to the angels the world to come, but He has put it in subjection to man--yet not the man to whom it was originally put in subjection, for, though it was so, yet now we see it not so. The man lost his dominion, and instead of having all things in subjection under his feet, he himself is now in subjection to death. And he is in subjection to death only because he is in subjection to sin, for "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. 5:12. He is in subjection to death because he is in subjection to sin, for death is only the wages of sin.

Nevertheless, it stands eternally true that not unto the angels hath He put in subjection the world to come, but unto man. And, now, Jesus Christ is THE MAN.

For, though this dominion having been put in subjection to man and though now we see it not so, though man was given the dominion over all, and now we see that dominion lost to that particular man, yet we do "see Jesus," as man, come to regain that original dominion. We do "see Jesus" as man, come to have all things put in subjection under Him.

That man was the first Adam; this other Man is the last Adam. That first Adam was made a little lower than the angels; this last Adam, Jesus, also we see "made a little lower than the angels."

That first man did not remain in the position where he was made, "lower than the angels." He lost that and went still lower and became subject to sin and, in that, subject to suffering, even to the suffering of death.

And the last Adam we see in the same place, in the same condition: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." And again: "Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all OF ONE."

He which sanctifieth is Jesus. They who are sanctified are men of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples. And one man sanctified out of any nation, any kindred, any tongue, or any people, is divine demonstration that every soul of that nation, kindred, tongue, or people might have been sanctified. And Jesus, having become one of these that He might bring them to glory is proof that He is one of mankind altogether; that He, as man, and all men themselves, are "all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren."

Therefore, as in heaven He was higher than the angels, as God; so on earth He was lower than the angels, as man. As when He was higher than the angels, as God, He and God were of one; so when He was on the earth, lower than the angels, as man, He and man are "of one." So that just as certainly as, on the side of God, Jesus and God are of one--of one Spirit, of one nature, of one substance; so, on the side of man, Christ and man are "of one"--of one flesh, of one nature, of one substance.

The likeness of Christ to God is in substance as well as in form. And the likeness of Christ to man is in substance as well as in form. Otherwise, there is no meaning in the first chapter of Hebrews as introductory to the second chapter--no meaning in the antitheses between the first and second chapters, and the first chapter is out of place and empty, as a basis of introduction to the second chapter.