Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

The Weaknesses of Christ - EN

187 visualizaciones

Publicado el

The Weaknesses of Christ - EN

Publicado en: Entretenimiento y humor
  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

The Weaknesses of Christ - EN

  1. 1. The question may seem naive, or even funny, but it, in Biblical understandings, it’s the most important: Was Jesus the same...? It doesn’t exist a physiological criterion, neither chemical, neither physical: the marker it’s biological. The apoptosis it’s a physical phenomenon: and it is the marker of what we understand, of how the organic became understood. A cell, in its marker of beginning, possesses a time of life: there’s no reason to suppose that any organism that has the understanding of living being may be differed of any other criteria that don’t be the natural one: And in this sense, Jesus would die, independently of having been sacrificed, or, of the understanding of his sacrifice: in mode that, in his birth, the conception, a theological hypothesis, doesn’t overwrites the organic limitations, of which the mortal body of Jesus was submitted. In mode that the Death is anterior to the man: The Theology hasn’t forces to deny the Biology. Pope Francis, recently declared that Science is Religion[X]: There doesn’t exists argumentation that someday, the natural world was different: what happened in the Paradise didn’t happened in the Nature: and in this sense, Jesus could only be the same in spiritual terms: and this would be misunderstanding that Jesus was an atom of body-and-spirit, and not a unique spirit, in the form of a body, as Paul would like to: this would be disaffirming Pope Francis: the example of Jesus wouldn’t be human, and neither the human of Jesus would be natural. And the question isn’t exactly the Resurrection: Was the Jesus that came equal to the Jesus that went- back? Being this [I mean, Jesus] equal to the First? All knows, the resemblance isn’t an equality: resemblance is an attribution of the same: in logistical terms, it’s axiomatic: ‘the same’ possesses the understanding that one unique thing may as much being as not being, as much be as not be [tanto pode ser quanto não ser, tanto pode estar quanto não estar]: differently of the expression One unique thing: for this, the attribution it’s fix: A=A: and in this sense, Jesus is equal to God: in mode that one unique thing isn’t equal to one same thing: I want that these things be clears, and that the resemblance don’t stay misunderstood. The spirit it’s an image of the body, and in this sense, the difference isn’t just the immortality, but emotional as well: the emotional image of Jesus wasn’t exactly the same of the emotional image of God..? because the changing only has condition of explaining the coming-back: The Jesus that came was a weak- one, and the Jesus that came-back, was the strong-one: once the weakness, in this sense, even though addressed to the man, would’ve being addressed to God as well, independently of the criterials of the observation: it indeed existed. Well, I’m a specialist in Biblical issues and Torah, in mode that I already know the answer: and the answer couldn’t be another, other that it doesn’t exist indeed an answer: as every Biblical answer, it treats about an ambiguity…: in mode that the entire material in use, or even by grand Scholars, the answer it’s a Creed: a Metaphor: in mode that I will be more specific, in the understanding of the question: Jesus performed weaknesses, but, was he a grand actor or did he felt weak in that moment? And in this moment, would it be correct that, the sentiment that Jesus felt, in that moment, was the sentiment of God? Independently of this sentiment being human as well: Paul and his wounds [Rom8, 1Cor15, 2Cor12 and 13] affirm that yes: ‘When I’m weak, I feel powerful’: but isn’t plain that the weakness it’s a sentiment of God… : possibilitate a weakness in God it’s agree with the enemy: And Paul agreed: ‘The Law, which was delivered to me, of The Sin and of the Death’: was what Christ was to Paul: the image and resemblance of the Sin and of the Death: it was how Paul understood the nature, it was how Paul understood the Terrain: and this is also affirming that the emotional-body affected the emotional-spirit: what was lose in the body, was loosen in the spirit: in mode that, independently of the Spirit has the capacity of recovering itself and of recovering the body as well, it doesn’t steps-away the understanding that the Spirit in that exact moment, and this is the specificity of the question, a sentiment strange to the nature of God existed in Jesus: justify, in this sense, it’s useless, because it doesn’t steps-away the understanding that the weakness indeed existed, independently of the eschatology of the question, it’s admitting that one day God was weak: This is the understanding of the Torah, this is the understanding of Christ, of Paul, of Augustine and of Thomas
  2. 2. Aquinas, the biggest legislators of the question: the weakness of God indeed existed, but, it only existed because of the man: God created all the things, and for this, may exclude Himself of them as well: but this is affirming as well that God isn’t natural: and in this sense, it would be affirming as well that it wasn’t Him whom created the nature: more yet: not even that the nature was created: in mode that the Weakness cannot be, indeed, excluded of the natural sentiments, or, of the nature-of-God: once the nature it’s unknown and terminatively different of the nature of the man: and in this sense, on example of Christ, God dies, has weaknesses, but possesses the power of regenerating-Himself and practicing the self-cure. in the Nature, such things are possible, but the biological understanding isn’t similar to the Theological one: the difference it’s in the Resurrection: It doesn’t exist Resurrection in the nature: recommence it’s a continuity , and not the understanding of a new beginning: the new beginning it’s the status of that whom gets to go-back to the First: and going back to the First, it’s going back to the state where nothing existed: this is not possible in the Organic, only in the Idea: because this is the primordial state where the action was conceived, will never be a movement, because this state possesses the status where nothing moved itself, except an idea: it’s misunderstanding that the spirit it’s an action and the body it’s the movement: and in this sense, going back to the first would be irrelevant, because the Conscience-of-God would be dead, because the action only exists in function of the movements of the bodies: in mode that few matters where the understanding of the question claim a geometrical position, the permanence would be under the angle of the death: Jesus, going back to the First would be going back to the death: and this would finish the question because this would be affirming that it was from where he came from. In mode that, it’s stupidity of the reader run-away of the misunderstanding of that which is considered the unique substantialism of the matter, that which indeed was seen, and testimonied, and written, and validated as the real understanding of the matter: the weakness it’s the unique thing that was seen, as much in God as in the Man, as much in the body as in the Spirit: This is the understanding of Pope Francis, and it’s my understanding as well, because this is the understanding of the modern Christianism: for this, seems me that the PhD’s are un-updated. And I went to ask the opinion of Quora one more time, if someone has a different understanding, and gets to answer in a clear, objective way, a simple question, of humanitarian interest. Admitting that Jesus had weaknesses doesn’t affects the understanding of the love, and neither of the nature, and neither of God: or not? There exists values that must be originally defended, for there being guarantees, rewards, interests, of which that which was called humanity of the question may not be indeed as easily overwritten..[?]: think: weaknesses are involved with something complicated: the vice [o vício]: and this may be as much as beverages, as seduction, sex, where the enemy it’s involved: weaknesses may also be understood as hunger, the extreme necessity of something, which may be as much physic as spiritual: but weakness also may be understood as the Innocence of God: it was where Thomas Aquinas angled the concupiscence of Augustine: the existence of partitions in the man, in the understanding of the original distinction: the man wouldn’t be so silly, to the point of the voluptuousness of God be uncleared-up: in mode that the sexual weakness of God, in the understanding of Eve, and in the sexual weakness of Christ, in the understanding of Magdalene, are more important than the sexual understanding of God in David and Bathsheba. In mode that the sexual weakness is original of the Man. In mode that, admitting weaknesses in Christ would be addressing to God as well the same kind of human weaknesses. Pope Francis affirms that God evolves: and in this sense, it’s the explanation of the Strong- One: that the Law of Paul treats itself of a Zombie-Law: ‘so it spoiled in the body, to the best’: that the spiritual evolution of God it’s analogous to the evolution of the man: but denying that the strong-one is strong only because the weak-one one day existed, not only is a misunderstanding of the physical as also a Theological dumbness: the death only appeared after for that the man proved God: the modern understanding of the Christianism doesn’t supports anymore this kind of position, because there isn’t a natural backing: in the same mode, one cannot deny the emotional weakness of Jesus, in various passages: And about this, something more must be said, for that the reader may be better conduced in his answer.
  3. 3. It seems me reasonable suppose that the Jesus that came wasn’t exactly equal to the Jesus that went- back… In mode that, independently of the criteria that one angles the binning body-and-spirit, I mean, ‘the weak spirit went out for a walk’ [x], ‘the flesh is weak’ [Matt.26:41]: there exists a weakness, and its procedence it’s less than its existence. The man it’s an atom, and the sentiment of Jesus it’s the image of God… Yes, Jesus it’s an image, because image it’s a defined form, a body: the image of the spirit it’s the nothing: in mode that Jesus could only be resembling to God, never equal: A=B: Jesus, in Biblical terms, it’s the second version of Adam: yes: spirit doesn’t possess a defined form, not being able to be used as body, in a proof of comparison: in mode that Adam had spirit: today we all know, ‘it’s the first homo-sapiens, the first version of God..’: in mode that it’s reasonable suppose that, unless one believe that God have indeed special criteria in the supplying of mortal bodies and that the Spirit of Christ be different of any other homo sapiens, and that such procedure have somehow been mentioned or something resembling in the Torah, that different animas were delivered to different men, not only would have to have been mentioned, as also, the fact should have been testimonied, the phenomenon of the immortality, among the Jews. The Theory of the Celestial Differentiation it’s a Pauline Theory, it is contradictory, it’s not Scientific, and neither lesser yet Natural: and even beyond the more when the own interpretations of Paul are contradictories: Paul affirms that all will change, but also affirms that not even all will change: it’s a known discussion, and the understanding of Pope Francis is that Paul erred: and that the correct understanding is that all will change: And in this sense, it would be more harmonic affirming that Jesus came weak, just as Adam, just as all the men, but, went-back strong: and this be the latu sensu of the new-man, of the understanding of the Resurrection: be a diary and constant process: and not a terminal, fatalistic one as proposed John: the Apocalypse of the Man it’s not the Apocalypse of the Universe: the immortality of the Man exists only in the Theology: it’s not scientific: for this, it’s harmonic the understanding of Pope Francis, of seeking for, not a neutrality, a hideout in the angles of the question, but of a natural answer to the nature of God. One arguing that the hypothesis of Paul in 1Cor15 (‘if there exist terrestrial bodies, there must exist spiritual bodies… stars differs in grandness’s…’) and through a strange formulation, demonstrating that the nature it’s the proof of the existence of the spiritual world (“if there exist marine horses, there must exist terrestrial horses…”), doesn’t guarantee not even the existence of Spirit. Ora, Jesus it’s a body, the second body of God: in ‘what he is better than the other?’: there aren’t parameters to solve this question: seems me reasonable suppose than that Jesus indeed it’s the second man, independently of the ambiguity of Paul: In mode that the weakness it’s irrelevant, it seems to have few influence under the optics in what the second man it’s better than the first man in terms of weaknesses: because, if the first man felt weaknesses, the second man also felt weaknesses: and this was the question made: Jesus was the same […?]: the Jesus that came and the Jesus that returned[?], and right next, was questioned that the answer was so addressed: this is important because, if Jesus was the same, this is also the proof that God has weaknesses. In Corinth, Paul states something of which he doesn’t has exactly a comprehension: the relation spiritual bodies and mortal bodies: there isn’t biological criteria, nor anthropological, that the weakness addressed to one cannot be addressed to the other, in the optic of an evolutive concept: in mode that weakness, between God and Christ, the unique possible angle it’s the man. And in this sense, body and spirit can only be angled in the action: but, an action can be translated as a will in the same mode as a will may be translated in a sentiment: the actions of Christ possess a sentimental ballast: it’s the understanding of that whom reads: And deny that Jesus didn’t feel nothing while he was doing, would be affirming that Jesus never felt pain one day, and that for this, God doesn’t feels pain as well: all [toda] action has a sentiment: the understanding cannot be another, in Biblical terms. Whose is the sentiment of the weakness of God? : Yes, it’s this what’s being asked: in mode that weakness cannot be a terminology directed to an end, at the same time, misunderstand it as being a functioning,
  4. 4. and the weakness don not be indeed the sentiment by which God moves Himself in the man: independently of how strong the enemy be: the weakness cannot be darkened up as something that one day existed and then ceased to exist, and for this really, never existed: the answer would have to be that ‘Jesus came strong, didn’t have none weakness, and went-back strong’: this would be the other possible answer, but needs to be putted on proof its interpretation: If you have this answer, then I’d like to see the basis of your argumentation. My question it’s not simple, in mode that the answer cannot be simple as well, something of the kind ‘it’s something that I believe’: it’s something that the modern Christianism doesn’t wants anymore, this kind of judgement [juízo], or, the other answer, “Jesus was weak when he came, but Jesus a strong-one when he went-back”: This is the most usual answer, but it contains problems in its interpretative latu sensu: Jesus stayed better than God: You may affirm that God wanted like this, but also, cannot deny that God is like this. And this is the new understanding: the improvement it’s the Creative latu sensu of the Universe: God also changes, God also evolves, God also improves, because the weakness it’s the explanative latu sensu of the strong-one: and in this sense, the other possible answer it’s that “Jesus was the same because he came strong and went-back strong, in mode that the weakness in Jesus never existed”: Of the three hypotheses, this is the less probable, because Jesus wouldn’t have none serventia [usefulness] to the humanity: for this, most of the Christians rejects it: God would be a miserable, and not the creature: and not even hope the man would have, much more than a creed. Is it possible that someone gets to answer this with clarity? independently of the mercy being or not a divine sentiment, and that without this the strong one would never exist: think: the weakness it’s a functioning-God: God exists in function of the waiting that that the suffering ends up: that the existence ends up, arrive to a place where it doesn’t exists anymore the terrain nature: it’s a place where it doesn’t exists weaknesses anymore: this place would be God: in mode that it would be illogical accepting the hypothesis that God has weaknesses, when He’s justly the opposed, the Strong-One: it’s necessary this for that He don’t be that which He created, and His creation may be the nature: and so the human being explaining how he appeared in the earth: But this is also admitting as well that the human being doesn’t loves the weakness and denied God.: the modern understanding is that God is as weak as strong, because it treats about a functioning: the weakness it’s an action of God, analogous to fixing and the defect: it wouldn’t exist the improvement if there wasn’t the weakness: for this, the weakness cannot be misunderstood, independently of the sentiments, of the innocence, or of the conscience, the desire of God as not being the taste of an existence: The man doesn’t loves the improvement, because he would be loving the weakness: he loves the expecting that that ends up, this would be affirming that the man doesn’t loves the life that God gave him: in mode that the man desires the death, to be able to say that the life is the love, so that he may continue existing. The modern Christianism rejects this understanding, in mode that the death didn’t came of the sins of the man, but that the death it’s the understanding of the weakness of God. And in this sense, the understanding of the modern Christianism is that Jesus came weak and went back weak, it doesn’t exist end to the beginning, because just as the fixing, it treats of a functioning. This is the dangerous latu sensu because the understanding is that Jesus was never the same, neither when he came and neither when he came-back, because the nature is never the same. Jesus would have shown the latu sensu of an improvement: the rest, everything is subjective: this is the thinking of the modern Christianism. What’s the importance of this understanding..? I think so that none, it won’t change the history of the weakness, but it’s most harmonic, in the sense of removing of ambiguities: the death in biblical terms became a mythology, and this isn’t science, and for not being science, isn’t the nature. In mode that what’s wanted with the modern Christianism it’s the tacit and inviolable acceptation that the repentance is natural, as much as original, of the human being: there’s a good book [X]: yes, the repentance it’s lined up with the functioning-weakness: Christ is a repentant, Paul is a repentant, all the prophets, and until where’s known of the Saint-men, they were repentant: according to John, isn’t an advent of the birth, as David
  5. 5. affirmed (he was already a sinner in the belly of his mother): but that there wasn’t none man that didn’t have commit a sin: not being Christ able to be immune to the weakness, because the sins are naturals of the human being: and in this sense, the death as well. And you, what do you think? Did Jesus had weaknesses? Recently I was invited to mount a site in Academia to expose these matters, which involve broad knowledge to the professionals of subjective right of the matter. Soon as I have answers of the local intellectuals, if there be any answer, of course, it’s something that it’s being cleared up, I will publish here too, as complementary part of sources and bases of the stories which are being written. The question is God and the answer is it wasn’t I who did: in mode that it’s a gratuitous work that I do to the Vatican, clearing up better the thinking of Pope Francis, for being this the human understanding: The Love cannot be used anymore as the proof of abandonment. ‘For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful’ [2Cor12:10] It’s analogous to ‘Father, where are you, that abandoned me..?’ Matt27:46[X] The difference it’s in the angle of the coming back: God it's going-back to Paul in the same mode that Christ it’s going to the encounter of God: in mode that in Paul we have the coming-back of the father and in Christ we have the coming-back of the son: more yet, the love only occurs in middle the abandonment: the proof that the love is that, is that he was in the nothing in that moment, is that the love wasn’t with him, as if one day had been with God, as if one day it had been subjected to that, to the Creation: the proof of the abandonment: the certainty of a Separation: it's a difficult angle, the Weakness it's a Functioning-God: the man exists in the weakness, and claims at the same time that says being this his will: and for living like this, affirms that isn't the death that it's killing him, but is by God that he is dying: he declares a will in God, the motive of his existence, and makes a reference being this the Love: through the death, he makes a reference-God, at the same time on which validates being this his will, toward the understanding that God gave him: something that was configured, planted, and for this really, recognized being this his sentiments: However, the strange sentiment is darkened up, that his truly desire is that that ends itself up, and he exists in a place where the functioning of the Weakness doesn't exist. Ora, this place, where the weakness doesn't exist, it's a place that, paradoxically God isn't, because the place where doesn't exist weakness, it's in the nature: It's a misunderstanding, because, God only manifests Himself in the Death: the body is understood as death: in mode that what the man would be loving indeed, was that God ended Himself up: this is affirming that the man doesn't loves God, but loves existing : the man expects for a place where the work will no longer be charged of him: Ora, this place will never be God: because God it's a functioning: the Work it's the interruption of the time... it would be admitting that while in life, the man didn't work for God: it's admitting that in this day, the man didn't suffer for God, and didn't mortified his actions: because in this day he also didn't feel weaknesses, that he didn't feel himself abandoned: if the humanity was natural, it wouldn’t need of such confirmation: the similarities of the abandonment are configured as much in the cross in Christ, as in the grace of the disease, in Paul, which didn't measured forces to continue: the abandonment configured as weakness: Paul didn’t cease to love Christ for this and neither Christ ceased to love God for this: but the abandonment, to exist, needs to prove a separation: is over this sentiment that the acceptation raises itself : are the sine qua non conditions of the configuration of the displeasing: the abandonment is the educational system most well practiced and known: but these are also of the punishment, and not exactly of the grace: and in this sense it’s ridiculous understand the love in the conditions of the abandonment: and misunderstanding with this that God didn’t felt himself abandoned as well, by the man: in mode that the abandonment as well is the understanding of God and the sentiment of God in the nature: “the nature abandons”, “it’s natural abandoning”: the abandonment is natural of God: God indeed abandons: He already proved this in Adam: is misunderstanding the Genesis completely: God narrates spiritually in distaste the action of the man: Adam wasn’t made son, but Creature: the son came after. In mode that Christ was as much abandoned as he abandoned as well: it’s the sentiments of Paul in Corinth. In mode that the modern Christianism doesn’t treats itself of a bare acceptation of the weakness and of the recognizing of the problem coming from its interpretation, but that the conditions of functioning of the weakness are the real sentiments of the human being: not that which turns them different of the nature but what turns them more proximal of God: this understanding doesn’t affects the understanding of the lapse, neither of the repentance, neither of the resurrection, neither the one of the weakness: are conditions covered by the naturalness of the human being: The Theology has to be Organic: because the nature of God was questioned by the Science, on phylogenic level: the Theology needs to have an organic unicity, in its modern interpretation: it’s what said Pope Francis [x]: in mode that the organic sentiments of the weaknesses are as well spirituals.
  6. 6. And in this sense, if Jesus was the same, Jesus changed the as much as changes any other human being. Bigger clearing ups of these questions: [The Human Nature [X]], [The Case of the Rev. Edward Evanson, Vicar of Tewkesbury, By Edward EVANSON [X]], [Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on the Original Sin[X]]. Obs.: Indeed, this would be a publishing made in Quora, and indeed, I did a posting in Quora, but in a way simplest way, because, otherwise, just as you guys, they wouldn’t answer. For that the understanding of weaknesses be better cleared up, since all the Biblical recursiveness seems to have exhausted its explicative complex, the defect, of the why the Spirit cannot be Organic: naturalness, in the actions of Christ : the Sacrifice: resguardo [guard] of which the man would be conform this: and this is the matter: Christ needs to be human, but to be human, needs to prove his naturalness, it doesn’t treat of denying his conception, but that, much more than God, he was indeed a human being, and not denying his humanity and putting him in a scene that indeed never existed: In mode that the Theological, to be considered valid, the modern-Christianism, has to be considered Organic: Because the same Law of the Flesh has to be the one of the Spirit: The Spirit will be Eternal as much as the Hard-Work. In mode that the answer would have to stay like this: "Did Jesus felt weaknesses?": "Yes"; "Does God feels weaknesses?": "Yes"; "The Jesus that came was Organic, the Jesus that went-back was spiritual: and therefore, Jesus was not the same.": And this is the problem that's being cleared up. For that the Spiritual coming-back happens, the Resurrection cannot be physical, but mental: it's the latu sensu of the Spiritual- Body: the Resurrection of Christ did not happen: it was Rise: Christ died by himself: and anyone whom died as him, would be being exempt as well: it's the understanding of the Proper, in his personal death: Now, you cannot be sad for this, because this is the understanding Top of Pope Francis, this not only would be a regretting, even though the regretting be natural of God as well, you would be being a displease, for you wouldn't be satisfied with the life that God gave you, independently of the Death: accept this condition as being the love: In mode that, neither Christ , nor Paul got to show this sentiments: that it was sought for to hide his weaknesses, and invert the angle of the Death, as the sentiment of the death 'not being natural of God': neither the death of Paul neither the one of Christ, neither their weaknesses, stood so well cleared ups in the nature, and for this, didn't stayed so well cleared ups as well in the table.