Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight.

[Immanuel Can]

If God is incarnated to be with us, that makes it possible to be more like God, i.e. more good.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. The incarnate God is Jesus Christ. It's not us.

[Scott Mayers]

"Immanuel" is from meaning, "In-man-el" or "Am-man-el" , which is more like, "God is in man" which can be as much to mean, "Goodness is in man"...

Correction:

Immanuel: "with us is God"
Original Word: עִמָּנוּאֵל
Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine
Transliteration: Immanuel
Phonetic Spelling: (im-maw-noo-ale')
Definition: "with us is God"

That is ABLE to be inferred from what I just said. I argue that religion derives from an origin in real secular society. As such, if those of the ancient past were MEANING to be speaking about logical concepts or early 'scientific' understanding, they POST-NAME people based on secular terms used to reference real philosophical issues that are SHARED across the many variable people's who would meet up in the Middle East for trade. They were a multicultural society because the fertile cresent is the meeting point out of Africa that all societies originated from.

In the time of 'Christ', they were heavily influenced by the prior Greek philosophy which espoused many to soapbox their beliefs and were referred to as people who were a dime a dozen. People in the past (as is with most tribal societies), named people from real everyday words, just as North American Native people's with names like, "He who has likeness to a crow" might be summarily named, "Crowman" [I just made this example up though someone would have likely had such a label given. The "Immanuel" label would have referred to one who likely was "gnostic" and interpreted those soapbox philosophers who argued that all people are as worthy by Nature to any King, as "Jesus Christer's" where some might interpret them as of two types: Those who are merely arguing for 'equal' status, OR, those who literally think they are 'superior' by being literally favored as superior to the King. "Immanuel" likely meant, "one who believed that God (or one's independent part in NATURE) is still OF NATURE, and latter devolved to mean what you think it is by the literalist interpretation (that they are 'superiorly pronounced the 'true' King over the present one.)

Note that all these people's ideas derived directly from Socrates (meaning 'sacred') and modelled their various philosophies on the model of the Greeks. As such, the "Jesus Christ" were those of the literalist or the gnostic (non-literalist) varieties, both of which one could hardly be concerned about unless they actively interfere in social functioning, like those of the Temple in Jersusalem (last post of the last dynasty of the Egyptians represented most strictly as AkenAten followers before their fall and eviction BY the Egyptians who didn't approve of the totalitarian leader who originally imposed a religious interpretation to Temples, that they were not.)

I was commenting on the ridiculous response as praising you for merely having a name that she interpreted as some sign from God when she realized the name had a meaning that CAN be interpreted religiously but originally has normal everyday meaning without religious implications.

[Scott Mayers]

Dear mannie.

I've just realised, I have no more questions to ask. I have only to ask Jesus.

Thank you for restoring my faith. It had gone a bit wobbly for a long while, kind of like I had become trapped in purgatory for a spell, but something you said to me made me break free from purgatory. My faith stands strong, and not forgotten. Never forgotten.

Are you for real?

"Immanuel" is from meaning, "In-man-el" or "Am-man-el" , which is more like, "God is in man" which can be as much to mean, "Goodness is in man" such that, in line with the concept of "Jesus Christ" to actually mean, "I am equal to the annointed King". You don't need any literal religious interpretation of anything more devine than it as meaning the EACH PERSON is EQUAL by Nature and so the King, is no more significant than any member of society.

And for Immanuel, this points to Christianity's origin as a SOCIALIST movement!!

Dear Scott.

I want to believe there is a God, and sometimes I am often convinced that God is real and that the bible is indeed the real word of God.

When I'm writing here on this forum. I do so in the moment, I write my thoughts and feelings as they are immediately appearing to me in realtime. So at the time I wrote the above post, my thoughts were in the belief that God is real. I'm always being honest with my feelings Scott, the point is, I really do not know anything, I only have beliefs about God, not absolute knowledge that God exists, only the belief that God may exist. In essence I have no idea if there is a God or not.

I believe the human brain can be manipulated and brainwashed into believing just about anything and everything that is possible to imagine. And I am the sort of person who allows my imagination to run with any idea that's out-there.

The voice in my head, my thoughts are mostly telling me there is no possibility of a God being real. And that is why I continue to question I.C on the extraordinary claims he makes regarding pleasing God in order to be rewarded of eternal life. But of course the idea of an eternal life makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, but it's like I'm just so torn with what to believe. I know deep down that it's all BS


Also, I've noticed I.C. refuses to answer the difficult questions I ask for. That in and of itself tells me he doesn't know how to answer those difficult questions.

I think I may know why he cannot answer my questions, it's because he's just like everyone else who believes in something without any proof or evidence, he's sucked into what he wants to be real, and that becomes his reality that cannot be changed by anything outside of his own personal thought stream.


Also Scott, I realise that if Jesus is the image of God, then all that tells me is that man is God, which again, makes no sense.

What I think is more sensible is that the bible writers were only refering to the human condition and not to some divine God entity.

The bible content is all man-made, and not from some beyond magic being, in my logical opinion.

This is fine. I only read that one that I responded to without context. I don't condemn you nor Immanuel for your differing views but am just contributing here too. Don't presume that I LITERALLY interpret you or anyone 'nuts' here, even though when politics get involve, our rhetoric may hide this understanding, ...especially for how I think personally.

[Immanuel Can]

"Immanuel" is from meaning, "In-man-el" or "Am-man-el" , which is more like, "God is in man" which can be as much to mean, "Goodness is in man"...

Correction:

Immanuel: "with us is God"
Original Word: עִמָּנוּאֵל
Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine
Transliteration: Immanuel
Phonetic Spelling: (im-maw-noo-ale')
Definition: "with us is God"

That is ABLE to be inferred from what I just said.

Your inference was incorrect.

I argue that religion derives from an origin in real secular society.

it doesn't. You can see that for sure, as there have never been any ancient "secular" societies. In fact, as ironic as it seems, "secular" is a religious word. it comes from saeculum, in Latin.

The "Immanuel" label...

Is from long before the time of Christ, actually, in the 8th Century BC. It's found in the prophet Isaiah, who foretold the birth of Messiah.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel..." (Isaiah 7:14)

Note that all these people's ideas derived directly from Socrates...

No, sorry...they didn't.

Socrates was born in the 5th Century BC, you will find. That's three centuries later than the name "Immanuel." It's first found in the Hebrew Bible, in Isaiah, as you can see.

[Scott Mayers]

Correction:

Immanuel: "with us is God"
Original Word: עִמָּנוּאֵל
Part of Speech: Proper Name Masculine
Transliteration: Immanuel
Phonetic Spelling: (im-maw-noo-ale')
Definition: "with us is God"

That is ABLE to be inferred from what I just said.

Your inference was incorrect.

What is wrong is you. I don't know what your difficulty is with context is. I mentioned that your interpretation is NOT different from what I said other than that you add a religious interpretation to it...

I argue that religion derives from an origin in real secular society.

it doesn't. You can see that for sure, as there have never been any ancient "secular" societies. In fact, as ironic as it seems, "secular" is a religious word. it comes from saeculum, in Latin.

Also irrelevant. I separately mentioned the source of "Jesus Christ" from "Immanuel", but mentioned that ALL societies named things based on language used of the REAL society they live in that we do in kind today....that is, no mystical time where physics was ruled by Gods. I'm not religious so would not presume any religion derived FROM an actual 'god' but by people who interrelated their labels of people AFTER the people have defined themselves. As such, the norm is not to name people PRIOR to their birth like we default to today. Rather, they assign real descriptions of everyday contemporary life to concepts that have devolved to BECOME religious interpretation long after the original history and languages have been either lost or (more likely) intentionally destroyed BY religious people NOT wanting others to associate their 'god' to the prior religions or political states.

The "Immanuel" label...

Is from long before the time of Christ, actually, in the 8th Century BC. It's found in the prophet Isaiah, who foretold the birth of Messiah.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel..." (Isaiah 7:14)

This is post hoc reinterpretation, also. Note that Jesus Christ is only interpreted post hoc that this was a name. However, why would this literal name "Immanuel" NOT be the name rather than "Jesus Christ"? This should rationally hint to you that something is amiss: names were actually TITLES that referenced the literal events involved.

Note that all these people's ideas derived directly from Socrates...

No, sorry...they didn't.

Socrates was born in the 5th Century BC, you will find. That's three centuries later than the name "Immanuel." It's first found in the Hebrew Bible, in Isaiah, as you can see.

And thus you are missing the point given Socrates predated any "Jesus"; I wasn't concerned about the term "Immanuel" given your belief is based upon Jesus in meaning who is still yet to be born long after Socrates. "Socrates", as was all Greek philosophy, was the contemporary influence at the time of 1 AD. They were the culture in the Middle East that influenced many to THINK philosophically. The nature of the 'dark ages' was also about hiding this link, as it was with the Egyptian (and other sources) PRIOR to Judaism being reformulated from them. Christianity and Judaism coevolved around the same time but Judaism borrowed the Egyptian history, which came earlier.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Immanuel" label...

Is from long before the time of Christ, actually, in the 8th Century BC. It's found in the prophet Isaiah, who foretold the birth of Messiah.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel..." (Isaiah 7:14)

...why would this literal name "Immanuel" NOT be the name rather than "Jesus Christ"?

Because the promise in the name "Immanuel" is that the one who would come, would be "God with us," so it was a description of his identity. But since you mention His human name, Jeshua or Jesus, it means "God saves." And "Christ" is not a name, but another title: it's the Greek word meaning "Messiah."

The rest of your message is a mad scramble of errors, Scott. I confess that I just haven't the patience even to straighten it out anymore.

[Dontaskme]

I confess that I just haven't the patience even to straighten it out anymore.

Be silent and know that I am nothing and everything. That's the easiest way to straighten out any crooked maze that is the mind.

Keep it simple, and if you must complicate the simple, do not despair, you're everywhere and nowhere.

A maze in.

[Walker]

Interesting how the spotlight has a boomerang effect.

[Belinda]

If God is incarnated to be with us, that makes it possible to be more like God, i.e. more good.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. The incarnate God is Jesus Christ. It's not us.

A person who influences me is psychologically 'in me'.

[Immanuel Can]

A person who influences me is psychologically 'in me'.

No, that's just a metaphor. It's not literal.

[Belinda]

A person who influences me is psychologically 'in me'.

No, that's just a metaphor. It's not literal.

It is as true as that my psyche exists. I know my psyche : you cannot know my psyche.

[Immanuel Can]

A person who influences me is psychologically 'in me'.

No, that's just a metaphor. It's not literal.

It is as true as that my psyche exists. I know my psyche : you cannot know my psyche.

Well, I know what Christ said He would do. And it's not simply to insert Himself into your psyche as something so vague as an influence or example. So it may be the case that that is how you would choose to make use Him, if you could; but it's not how He chooses to offer Himself to you.

[Belinda]

No, that's just a metaphor. It's not literal.

It is as true as that my psyche exists. I know my psyche : you cannot know my psyche.

Well, I know what Christ said He would do. And it's not simply to insert Himself into your psyche as something so vague as an influence or example. So it may be the case that that is how you would choose to make use Him, if you could; but it's not how He chooses to offer Himself to you.

But influences and examples are not vague, for me. There are people in my life who were directly, not vaguely, influential for me . Really this is a fact you cannot reasonably deny not having privileged access to my soul.

[Immanuel Can]

It is as true as that my psyche exists. I know my psyche : you cannot know my psyche.

Well, I know what Christ said He would do. And it's not simply to insert Himself into your psyche as something so vague as an influence or example. So it may be the case that that is how you would choose to make use Him, if you could; but it's not how He chooses to offer Himself to you.

But influences and examples are not vague, for me. There are people in my life who were directly, not vaguely, influential for me . Really this is a fact you cannot reasonably deny not having privileged access to my soul.

I wasn't "denying" that is was so. I was simply saying that if that were all you have obtained from Christ, you haven't obtained what He came to give you.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, I know what Christ said He would do. And it's not simply to insert Himself into your psyche as something so vague as an influence or example. So it may be the case that that is how you would choose to make use Him, if you could; but it's not how He chooses to offer Himself to you.

But influences and examples are not vague, for me. There are people in my life who were directly, not vaguely, influential for me . Really this is a fact you cannot reasonably deny not having privileged access to my soul.

I wasn't "denying" that is was so. I was simply saying that if that were all you have obtained from Christ, you haven't obtained what He came to give you.

Can he send a woman instead?