one under god: << people dont get what im saying? >>

Er, no, actually - I'm with Snake and Fractelle here: I've had a few attempts at trying to understand what it is you're on about, but I'm afraid your posts are incomprehensible, so I no longer bother.

Chainsmoker's quite correct of course. However, I think I must have a slightly masochistic streak where Boazy's concerned.

I'll write it in my diary for tomorrow: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

:)

At LAST... the time/post limit is allowing me in here again:)

OneUnderGod.. I'm sure you mean well, but my goodness.. all that effort.. but...?
1/ Try to have a point.
2/ Try to make it clear
3/ Try NOT to break rules about using excessive "- and _" characters or.. your posts quite likely will be deleted..and/or..you might be banned.. just a friendly warning.
Are you a 'British Israelite' believer?

Oly.. so much to work with.. we must coffee sometime. On your post saying Jesus is coming to fulfill the 2nd covenant re the OT...
Good try, but you won't find that in Mark 1:1-4, but elsewhere.
The reason I'm sticking 'just' with the text given is an important one, it will reveal how much we read 'into' it :) as you did,..
Try again..but JUST... see what the 'text' itself says... k? :)
Forget ALL preknown things if possible. No Jargon.. no external reading.. 'just' Mark 1:1-4...
The other things you mentioned are not in the text.

CJ.. and Fraccy.. please stop projecting 'INto' this topic your sidetracking and personal abuse *pinch x2* or should I say 'Scratch'?:)

BUGGGGGGSSYYYYYY! you GOT IT!..Halelujah.. there is SOMEone from my usual 'critics who actually addressed thaaaaaaa "TOPIC".

Now..I just followed 'your' link mate.. and began reading.. I didn't realize I needed to click to another page.. you sneaky blighter*smile*

But given what I read.. yes..out of context.. I kinda nailed it as far as the 'text' I read went ..right?
Sure..more 'context'..more clarity. No argument with your 'out of context' point.

Now.. I did it for you.. can you please have a crack at Mark 1:1-4 and see what it's saying? (see my comments to Oliver above)

Forget that its a 'religious' text.. for this exercise..its just 'text'.

TRTL.. yes, there is a lot of 'interpretation' even about the crimes act. But I assert that there is a plain meaning, only disputed for reasons of vested interest. Space shuttles arrive at the moon based on...'specific' interpretations of written text.

Boazy,

"On your post saying Jesus is coming to fulfill the 2nd covenant re the OT...Good try, but you won't find that in Mark 1:1-4, but elsewhere." - Boaz

Malachi 3.1:

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts". Matches to: Matt 11:10, "Mark 1:2" :-), Luke 7:27

But this a Christian interpretation. Is there an historical cross-validation?

You haven't commented Nero.

"'just' with the text given" - Boaz


Mark 4.1.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Gospel = Greek euaggelion = message; bardardised in Anglo-Saxon to God-tell

Jesus = Greek transliteration of Iesous from Hebrew Jehoshua meaning salvation; The son of a Nun [Virgin] (First called Osee; Septuagint 'Iesoûs, first Aúsé), or, Josue, whom commanded a tribe of Isreal, after the Exodus.

Interpretation: Jesus was a saviour born into a family whom commanded the tribe of Israel, after the Exodus. His mother was engaged to be married, but became preegnant beforehand [She gave birth as a Nun][Numbers 27.18]. Josue is a successor of Moses, after the Exodus.

Christ = Hebrew Messias= appointed, consecrated, altar of the tabernacal or denoting dignity towards god; or prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah [Talmud]

Son of God: Intimate relation or connection to God; Sons of God [God's angels] stand against Satan [Job 1.6; 2.1]

Interpretation: One whom stands with God against evil.

-more later, very time consuming-

Don't forget link or Nero. Tah.

"TRTL.. yes, there is a lot of 'interpretation' even about the crimes act. But I assert that there is a plain meaning, only disputed for reasons of vested interest. Space shuttles arrive at the moon based on...'specific' interpretations of written text."

The difference here, boaz, is that there is a clear end result.

Tell me - if somebody else had read the same directions and built an entirely different space shuttle, which still made it to the moon, would the original 'interpretation' still be the only right one?

In fact, if many different people had all read the manual, and come out with a hundred different contraptions, each of which still got them to the moon, and they were so convinced theirs was the better shuttle they were willing to go to war over it - would there still be a 'correct' way to read the directions?

Or if you really want to get into it - riddle me this: if nobody knew what the directions meant, but one person read them and ended up building a time machine instead, would you still insist they were directions for building a space shuttle, if the directions were disputed and the time machine was the better machine?

Oly...I'll get to Nero in due course I'm sure.. (if not u'll remind me :)

This might seem petty..but if we can limit our 'information' interpretation to just the text.. without going to the various definitions..it would help in acheiving the goal here.

I'm not 'letting the cat out of the bag' or it would be pointless.

You are heading in the right direction, but you are still providing much much more than the text itself can give. This is very simple stuff.. by that I mean.. say "only" what we can...from the text itself..without referring to any other document, or.. to pre-existing definitions/information which you might know from other reading.

So..u've kind of said most of it.. but more also.

You gave wonderful definitions of 'Son of God' etc.. but you don't need to go that far for this particular task... if we were looking at it and trying to make all the terms meaningful to a wide audience..then yes.. of course we would seek to flesh out each word.
But for our little 'group' :) lets really try to stick to the words on the paper..rather than our knowledge of them from outside sources at this point.

Hint... "what" is the 'beginning' of the Gospel?

Think again..if 'THIS' is ALL we knew of Jesus and the 'Gospel'..what would we know?(only.. repeat..only..from the text at hand)

TRTL.. I honestly think you are just playing with semantics to avoid actually confronting 4 verses of text.
As I said..this is not any kind of trick question.. the only thing I'm heading towards is simply 'What the words on the page mean in everyday language'..not how they should be applied to our lives. So ur safe.

By doing this, and limiting the focus tightly, I'm sure most of us will at least realize how much we did 'not' see...at first.