Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christmas Star Explained
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 278 (430013)
10-23-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
10-22-2007 7:18 PM


Re: more projection
You admitted that God had a chariot in Ezekiel. Now you think He couldn't park it near the place where His son was born, for some reason. Despite the fact He said He would behold it afar off. Despite the fact a star can't fit the bill of the Christmas star.
You seem to have a problem with UFOs. Whether you have seen any or not, that gives you no right to pretend there is any reason to doubt the bible documented flying machine of the Ancient of days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 10-22-2007 7:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 1:25 AM simple has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 227 of 278 (430021)
10-23-2007 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
10-23-2007 12:51 AM


Re: more projection
You admitted that God had a chariot in Ezekiel.
"admit" is not the right word. i never claimed otherwise -- the merkabah is indeed the very first vision in the book of ezekiel.
Now you think He couldn't park it near the place where His son was born, for some reason.
that is not what is described in the gospels.
Despite the fact a star can't fit the bill of the Christmas star.
...what part haven't you been listening to? a star is the only thing that can fit the bill. astrologers looked into the east sky and saw a star. not a UFO, a star. they knew what stars looked like. the information they gathered was "king" "born" and "israel." from that information, they went west, the opposite direction of the star.
You seem to have a problem with UFOs.
on the contrary, you seem to be the one with the problem here.
Whether you have seen any or not,
i have in fact seen a UFO.
that gives you no right to pretend there is any reason to doubt the bible documented flying machine of the Ancient of days.
but simple, that's just the problem. we're not talking about the bible. we're talking about your crazy made up idea of what it all means. there is no UFO in matthew or luke. there's just a star, seen by astrologers, who gathered astrological information from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 12:51 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 1:58 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 278 (430026)
10-23-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by arachnophilia
10-22-2007 7:56 PM


Re: what isn't a UFO?
not just my opinion. your source agrees:
quote:it rather signifies dominion, power, and authority, as the sceptre always does, it being an emblem of it, see (Numbers 24:17) (Zechariah 10:11) and this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe, which commenced as soon as it became a tribe, and lasted as long as it remained one, even unto the times of the Messiah; or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of, "
Yes it does signify power and dominion, now, tell us why that power and dominion can't be God's??!! After all He is the One with the sceptre. Part of HIS rule over Israel would be through kings. -To say it was nothing more than that is missing the Big picture.
yes, david died. do you fail to understand what a "house" is? "house of david" was a traditional way that prophets like isaiah adressed the king. because a "house" is a family, and the family of david was royal. david's son solomon sat on david's throne. solomon's son rehoboam sat on david's throne. get it? this verse is talking about government. just the same as the judah verse. not UFOs.
Isn't Jesus of the house of David, yet it is unto Him that the people will gather. The major player is Jesus, there, not David.
no, he didn't. he saw the city of shiloh close up and personal, when he brought the ark of the covenant from there to jerusalem.
So what?? That is a minor opinion, and I already gave the commentaries and broad agreement on what Shiloh is in that verse. You are trying to plug a hole the dike with your finger here.
again, here is the verse:
quote:2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
there is nothing about a sceptre there. just a throne -- david's throne. this verse, however, is the same meaning as the verse about judah:
First of all, did I bring up the Samuel verse? David's throne will be forever, through Jesus. David personally will even be there helping to rule some bits, as a minor player.
there is nothing about a sceptre there. just a throne -- david's throne. this verse, however, is the same meaning as the verse about judah:
quote:Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
See, the sceptre is God's. as I said. David's throne, and house are localized things. The main reason David is important is because Jesus came from that house, and is the One that will rule all thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers. In heaven and on earth.
mine is not an opinion. mine is what the text says. and your opinion is one that runs contrary to that, and is disagreed with by the very sources you cite. the completely honest truth of the situation is that nearly everyone who read the text comes down somewhere close to my reading of it, except for you. you go and tilt at windmills, pretending they're giants.
Hey, I don't agree with every bit of all sources I cite, and usually cite them on a specific point. Your opinion that Shiloh mostly refers to the town is opinion, or that the sceptre refers primarily to God, as well as His agents prophets, and kings, and whatnots, is opinion.
The full meaning of that prophesy has never been understood. If you think otherwise you are ,making too much of your little favored opinion. Eat some humble pie.
no, simple, you're the one making stuff up. that "the sceptre" represents god's rule is your assumption, and one, again, contradicted by the very sources you cite. and "jesus" is not mentioned at all. that "shiloh" means the messiah is also your assumption. these are both things that you have pretty clearly invented. and then, on top of that, to interpret it as a UFO from those thing -- well, that's about loony as it comes when it comes to making stuff up.
The commentaries contradict your claims. They unanimously agree Shiloh is the savior. You are out flanked. The Almighty is documented to have wheels, as is widely widely known. To claim He could not see Shiloh at birth from afar up is pure nonsense. All that remains is your repeated incredulity about UFOs. That and a dollar and a half might get you a coffee.
no, we can't. peasant houses in the first century ad in israel were one and a half story deals. the main floor was raised and made of wood, and the space underneath was used for keeping animals inside during the colder months. during the warmer months (when shepherds slept outside with their flocks), the additional space could be used to house someone overnight if absolutely neccessary. not the greatest living conditions, but this was the barn that jesus was born in.
No matter how you glorify it, animals stink. It is reasonable to assume that Mary would not linger there after the baby was born. She would go home, or some place. Nazareth is not near Bethlehem, they were only there on business.
there was no such thing as a "hotel." guests and travellers were put up for the night in houses. people looking for jesus would have come to a house either way. the text does not say whose house it was.
The Greek word for Inn, means this
1. an inn, lodging place
2. an eating room, dining room
The lodging place was not normally a manger. Unless a cow wanted to rent a room for the night. Get serious. It didn't have to be the Ritz Carleton, to have good food, and sleeping accommodations, and facilities.
The wise men would no more have come to a house than the shepherds came to a house!! Nonsense. Not if they came to the manger of Bethlehem. But they didn't, that was long after, in another city, very likely.
We do not know how many wise men there were, or where they came from. Most assume Persia. But some of them may have come from further. That means that it took over a year.
"From Persia, whence the Magi are supposed to have come, to Jerusalem was a journey of between 1000 and 1200 miles. Such a distance may have taken any time between three and twelve months by camel. Besides the time of travel, there were probably many weeks of preparation. The Magi could scarcely have reached Jerusalem till a year or more had elapsed from the time of the apperance of the star."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Magi
Herod also for some reason assumed that the appearing of the star was the birth of Jesus.
"Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star's appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child's birth," (same link)
So the timing fits. You just can't get the wise men to the stinking stable the night He was born. Otherwise, we need to have them flee with the newborn, and forget going to the temple as He was recorded as doing.
A lot hinges on when that star appeared. If it was a star that heralded the birth of messiah, can you tell us why it would appear years before He was born????
But all that aside, the star WENT before the wise men, guiding them to a house!!! That star was hovering over the birth of God's son!!! We know that much.
you just go right on making stuff up, don't you? god was there, in a very strongly literal sense. he led the way through the desert -- and not in a UFO. he let moses see him, and spoke audibly to the congregation. follow this bit, he assisted the israelites in conquering the holy land.
God was also there in the starship at the birth of Jesus, and afterwards. He spoke audibly to many when Jesus was being baptized. See if you can guess who was speaking here
'This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased'
The fire on the mountain never consumed the bush, so we can say it was not PO fire. By extension, the smoke and fire pillar representing God can not be said to be PO either. Any more than the starship over Bethlehem.
jesus spoke ill of the people who wrote the bible? what book are you reading?! it's not the bible, that's for damned for sure. and let's be clear about this.
JESUS WAS A JEW!
your comments are pure ignorance, and are highly offensive.
No, He spoke very very ill of the Pharisees and rulers of Israel in His day. They wrote squat. To take their oversight of records as anything but suspect is offensive, and antchrist.
the fact is that you brought it up. here, in this thread. now, i'm saying the ark of the covenant was a UFO, and what they really saw in the sky on christmas eve was the ark of the covenant. afterall, jesus was the new covenant, and what better way to establish that than by leading people there with the old one.
you see, i can make up stuff too.
Ezekiel's wheels flew. The "f" in UFO means flying. Can you evidence that the ark flew?? You can't leave the F OFF.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 10-22-2007 7:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 2:35 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 278 (430029)
10-23-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by arachnophilia
10-23-2007 1:25 AM


Re: more projection
"admit" is not the right word. i never claimed otherwise -- the merkabah is indeed the very first vision in the book of ezekiel.
OK, so you admit that the Almighty has wheels. The Suspect now just needs to be placed at the scene. I already had the Father right up above, talking down at the baptism. Done.
that is not what is described in the gospels.
It fits, He is admitted to have wheels by you. He was on the scene. He had the opportunity, the motive, the means. What the star is described as dong is moving, and guiding. We have a match!
...what part haven't you been listening to? a star is the only thing that can fit the bill. astrologers looked into the east sky and saw a star. not a UFO, a star. they knew what stars looked like. the information they gathered was "king" "born" and "israel." from that information, they went west, the opposite direction of the star.
Stars looked like a light in the sky. Get a grip. The information may have come from prophesy, among other things. Or, the starship flew over in the right area of the sky, on it's way to Bethlehem, in conjunction with other astral bodies, that triggered clear alarm bells in the magi. He knew how to pull their chain.
i have in fact seen a UFO.
OK. Me too. But I suspect that some UFOs are spiritual, some military. Since UFOs are not an issue, it is just the traits of the Christmas star, and what best fits. A flying, hovering spiritual vessel of the Almighty fits best by far. In fact, nothing else does!
but simple, that's just the problem. we're not talking about the bible. we're talking about your crazy made up idea of what it all means. there is no UFO in matthew or luke. there's just a star, seen by astrologers, who gathered astrological information from it.
Just a star does not lead men to a house. Face it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 1:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 2:46 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 278 (430033)
10-23-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Vacate
10-22-2007 9:07 PM


Frog dreams flushed V2
Perfectly clear, thank you. As I said, I will refer to this as semi-solid and use this quote from now on if the need arises as the definition of this term.
So you want to call the spiritual level semi solid. OK. Remember, it is long gone now from the world of men.
Vacate writes:
How high up was this place? Is it still there? When did it become non-physical? (or alternately - when did it change to become a place that pilots cannot ascend to) What is this place? (Unless you wish to provide an alternate I would choose to use Heaven V2 from this point on)
The place before Babel was not that high up. Otherwise we could not build a tower up to it. You seem to think it changed. No. The universe we live in was separated from it. That means it is still the same, we are just not near it.
The New Jerusalem I think you call it V2, Is not in the universe of the physical. It is separate. That happened 4400 years ago, that the spiritual was separated, or divided from the physical.
Do you believe in spirits?
Based upon the story you have presented, no. Based on reality, unsure and off topic.
People do not believe in spirits because of a forum on the net. So, your answer is you are not sure. OK.
I know that, thats why I have asked about its qualities four times now.
The properties of heaven are that it is a spiritual place, now separate from this physical universe state we exist in. You can't get there. It will come to land on earth soon as the new heavens universe state starts. It will then be both physical and spiritual, as will we. The laws governing matter in the eternal, spiritual also state are not our laws of physics. They will pass away.
Of course its fantasy, I made it up for the purpose of placating your desire for me to present an alternate story. I said as much. What is under question is whether your story succedes in meeting history and biblical interpretation. .
My ideas are BASED on the bible, and fit history.
So explain the details of the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death (Heaven V2) so it can be ruled out as relevant to the Starship Sceptre.
The ascending was after the star of Bethlehem. So, it is not relevant to the topic. The starship of the Almighty will no doubt be in the future, as well as it was in the past. There is no reason to think it did not fly long before this universe was created.
Oh? I could divide it up for you to better understand. Thus far you have:
# Refused to answer questions
# Asked me to answer my own questions
# Attempted to change my words to avoid answering questions
# Introduced elements that do not even relate to the questions I have asked.
These four points are the source of my apparent confusion. Does that provide the clarity you had hoped for?
I answered the questions. You don't. If you can't answer your own questions, why think anyone else can? If your words were clear, no need to change them. As for what relates and what doesn't you are not the judge.
Many of your questions were as ridiculous as your froggy answers. One tries to answer them, and gets this sort of drivel.
The Christmas star had supernatural qualities. Like a ship, it moved to guide men to a house. What about it???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Vacate, posted 10-22-2007 9:07 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Vacate, posted 10-23-2007 4:43 AM simple has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 231 of 278 (430034)
10-23-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by simple
10-23-2007 1:47 AM


Re: what isn't a UFO?
Yes it does signify power and dominion, now, tell us why that power and dominion can't be God's??!!
because context matters. when they're talking about god, it's about god. when they're talking about judah, or egypt, or persia, or babylon, it's judah or egypt or persia of babylon, respectively. it's not "god" when it says "judah." get it? you have to read the verse, not make it up in your head.
yes, david died. do you fail to understand what a "house" is? "house of david" was a traditional way that prophets like isaiah adressed the king. because a "house" is a family, and the family of david was royal. david's son solomon sat on david's throne. solomon's son rehoboam sat on david's throne. get it? this verse is talking about government. just the same as the judah verse. not UFOs.
Isn't Jesus of the house of David, yet it is unto Him that the people will gather. The major player is Jesus, there, not David.
according to the gospels, jesus was of the house of david, yes. the problem isn't there. it's that the house of david was deposed from 586 BC until the present. jesus's people -- the jews -- did not "gather unto" him. jesus never sat on that throne in jerusalem, and never was literal king of israel. even supposing he re-fulfills this prophecy, it was broken during the exile.
no, he didn't. he saw the city of shiloh close up and personal, when he brought the ark of the covenant from there to jerusalem.
So what?? That is a minor opinion, and I already gave the commentaries and broad agreement on what Shiloh is in that verse. You are trying to plug a hole the dike with your finger here.
uh, no, read samuel again. "shiloh" is the name of the city where the ark of the covenant resides until david brings it to jerusalem.
First of all, did I bring up the Samuel verse?
no, i did. it's called "content." i thought this thread should have some of it. the verse from samuel, about establishing david's throne, is the same as the verse about establishing judah's rule. the one you're pretending is about a UFO.
David's throne will be forever, through Jesus. David personally will even be there helping to rule some bits, as a minor player.
david is a minor player on his own throne. only you.
See, the sceptre is God's. as I said.
you are evidently misreading SOMETHING in this verse.
David's throne, and house are localized things.
yeah? i say they're UFOs.
The main reason David is important is because Jesus came from that house, and is the One that will rule all thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers. In heaven and on earth.
again, you write as if 75% of the bible doesn't matter.
Hey, I don't agree with every bit of all sources I cite, and usually cite them on a specific point.
i find it amusing when you post a source that disagrees with the specific point you cite them to demonstrate.
Your opinion that Shiloh mostly refers to the town is opinion,
uh, no. when it's talking about the town, it's talking about the town. when it's talking about the end-times, it's talking about the end-times. neither of those are opinions -- they're context.
or that the sceptre refers primarily to God, as well as His agents prophets, and kings, and whatnots, is opinion.
again, context. you really have to read what the verse actually says not what you wish it said.
The full meaning of that prophesy has never been understood.
...by you. the rest of us who live on earth understand it.
If you think otherwise you are ,making too much of your little favored opinion. Eat some humble pie.
no. why don't you. this is afterall all about your little favored opinion. the one that disagrees with common sense, the bible, history, science, and everyone else who can actually read. why don't you try some humble pie and admit that you're not being imparted special knowledge from god's UFO mind-control ray, and you're just making stuff up.
The commentaries contradict your claims. They unanimously agree Shiloh is the savior. You are out flanked.
no, simple, the ones you read think it means that. and the problem is that even if it is the messiah it means the messiah that the jews will accept. the one that brings about the end, and establishes god's kingdom of earth. the stuff that hasn't happened yet, and sounds more like the content of revelation than matthew. "until shiloh come" is like "kingdom come" in english. it means "the end." it's an expression.
The Almighty is documented to have wheels, as is widely widely known. To claim He could not see Shiloh at birth from afar up is pure nonsense.
i agree. it's nonsense. so is everything else you're saying. because, again, you are not actually addressing anyone's points. you are just stuck in your own little loop, like a broken record. nobody claimed that -- they claimed that you didn't know what you were talking about.
All that remains is your repeated incredulity about UFOs. That and a dollar and a half might get you a coffee.
if the text describes a UFO, we might talk. ezekiel describes somethign strange, yes, but it's not a UFO. and it does not show up elsewhere. you are arbitrarily reading any shiny thing you see fit as "UFO." you have to demonstrate your case before anyone will believe you. as it stands, the literal reading that astrologers saw something astrological and intepretted it astrologically makes a lot more sense. and you will find that it by far is the mainstream opinion.
The Greek word for Inn, means this
1. an inn, lodging place
2. an eating room, dining room
look, what i told came from knowledge and research about housing in first century ad israel. it doesn't matter what definition you pull up, "inn" would be the lodging place someone would have stayed in in 1st century israel -- someone's house.
The lodging place was not normally a manger.
"manger" comes from the french, meaning "to eat." a manger is a troph for feeding animals. jesus was born in a place for keeping animals -- the basement of a first century ad israeli house.
Unless a cow wanted to rent a room for the night. Get serious.
i am serious. have you not even read the gospels? there was no room. they stayed in a barn.
The wise men would no more have come to a house than the shepherds came to a house!! Nonsense. Not if they came to the manger of Bethlehem. But they didn't, that was long after, in another city, very likely.
your sentance is not even internally consistent. and anyways. you're comparing two different stories. in matthew, joseph and mary are from bethlehem -- there is none of thise bit about herod's survey, and them having to travel and stay anywhere. the house there is probably their own. in luke. they are from nazareth, and travel to bethlehem for the census, and stay in a barn. but there are no magi in luke, only heralding angels.
i know you won't understand this point. but maybe it'll help clear everything else up for the other people paying attention.
We do not know how many wise men there were, or where they came from. Most assume Persia. But some of them may have come from further. That means that it took over a year.
persia was the only country that would have cared about a new king in israel.
"From Persia, whence the Magi are supposed to have come, to Jerusalem was a journey of between 1000 and 1200 miles. Such a distance may have taken any time between three and twelve months by camel. Besides the time of travel, there were probably many weeks of preparation. The Magi could scarcely have reached Jerusalem till a year or more had elapsed from the time of the apperance of the star."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Magi
it was about 400 miles from the closest point of the persia empire at that time. it probably took a while, yes. no more than two years. no one is debating that.
So the timing fits. You just can't get the wise men to the stinking stable the night He was born.
the bible does not say. and, in any case, stars stick around longer than UFOs.
God was also there in the starship at the birth of Jesus, and afterwards. He spoke audibly to many when Jesus was being baptized. See if you can guess who was speaking here
'This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased'
and just how would you say that in klingon?
The fire on the mountain never consumed the bush, so we can say it was not PO fire. By extension, the smoke and fire pillar representing God can not be said to be PO either. Any more than the starship over Bethlehem.
and i suppose the destruction of jericho and the conquest of the holy land weren't "physical only" either. nor was the manna from heaven. not the water from a stone. nor the parting of the reed sea.
No, He spoke very very ill of the Pharisees and rulers of Israel in His day. They wrote squat. To take their oversight of records as anything but suspect is offensive, and antchrist.
one more time. maybe big letters will help.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT IN RECORDS FROM 500 BC, MADE BY THE PROPHET EZRA IN THE BOOK OF THE SAME NAME!

get that? the bible. not the pharisees. THE BIBLE! those suspect records you're talking about are

THE BIBLE

Ezekiel's wheels flew. The "f" in UFO means flying. Can you evidence that the ark flew?? You can't leave the F OFF.
sure i can. there it is in the east sky on christmas eve. must be flying! how would it ascend to heaven with jesus if it couldn't fly? and noah's ark flew too. how else would it have been kept safe from the crashing waves? he just didn't notice, because he was inside the whole time. and we can't trust his records anyways, because he was a dirty lying jew.
Edited by arachnophilia, : really big typo, in great big letters


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 1:47 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 3:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 232 of 278 (430038)
10-23-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by simple
10-23-2007 1:58 AM


still more things that are really UFOs
OK, so you admit that the Almighty has wheels.
again, "admit" is not the right word. talking about ezekiel's vision, yes, ezekiel does describe god as having a chariot.
The Suspect now just needs to be placed at the scene. I already had the Father right up above, talking down at the baptism. Done.
your logic, or rather lack thereof, is simply astounding. in your book, god himself might as well be the UFO. anywhere god appears, or talks, or does anything? that's a UFO. the ladder jacob sees? levitation ray. the man he wrestles with in the desert? that giant silver robot from "the day the earth stood still." the pillar of fire? a tripod from "war of the worlds." burning bush? roswell wreckage. enoch and elijah? alien abductees. the bit about no homosexuality? only god gets to do the anal probes. animal sacrifices? cow mutilation. i could really go on like this all day, just making shit up like you.
Stars looked like a light in the sky. Get a grip. The information may have come from prophesy, among other things. Or, the starship flew over in the right area of the sky, on it's way to Bethlehem, in conjunction with other astral bodies, that triggered clear alarm bells in the magi. He knew how to pull their chain.
really now. if you were god of the universe, and you wanted to send a message to a bunch of astrologers, how would you do it?
i have in fact seen a UFO.
OK. Me too. But I suspect that some UFOs are spiritual, some military.
i think we are closing in on the problem here. are you an abductee by any chance? have you checked your body for implants? experienced missing time? deja vu? bloody noses? the strange impression that something you were looking at was really something, if only for a split second, like an alien's face?
Since UFOs are not an issue, it is just the traits of the Christmas star, and what best fits. A flying, hovering spiritual vessel of the Almighty fits best by far. In fact, nothing else does!
on the contrary, just about anything else does.
Just a star does not lead men to a house. Face it.
nor does a UFO. not without being seen by everyone else in bethlehem. or nazareth. or capernaum. or jerusalem. or wherever you think it led them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 1:58 AM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-23-2007 5:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 278 (430040)
10-23-2007 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by arachnophilia
10-22-2007 7:22 PM


Re: just what is a "ting" anyways?
I gotta admit, if you haven't seen the movie, it isn't that funny. The point is, when someone talks about one thing, and is not clear, sometimes things get mixed up. Get it??
Here is a snip of the silly dialog from the movie.
" BEN
Which thing are you talking about? The first thing or the second thing?
SINDONE
What second thing? I only know one thing.
BEN
Well, I don't see how we can discuss the first thing without bringing up the second thing. Didn't you talk to the guy? He tugs meaningfully on his earlobe.
SINDONE
What guy?
BEN
The guy with the thing.
SINDONE
What thing? What the fuck are you talking about?
BEN
How should I know? You brought it up. (gestures helplessly
to the others) This is the whole problem. You can't have an intelligent conversation with the man.
SINDONE
How about if I just break your fuckin' neck? What do you think of that?
BEN
It's not important what I think. What do you think?
SINDONE
What do I think? I think it's a good idea! Why would I say it if I didn't think it was good?
BEN
I don't know. Why would you?
SINDONE
(frustrated) I wouldn't! That's what I'm saying!
BEN
Have you always had a problem dealing with your anger?
SINDONE
What are you talking about?
BEN
What do you think I'm talking about?
SINDONE
(explodes) I don't know what the fuck you're talking about!"
That was where the ting came from. Don't make a federal case over it.
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by arachnophilia, posted 10-22-2007 7:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 2:56 AM simple has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 234 of 278 (430041)
10-23-2007 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by simple
10-23-2007 2:48 AM


Re: just what is a "ting" anyways?
ooooh, i see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 2:48 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 278 (430045)
10-23-2007 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by arachnophilia
10-23-2007 2:35 AM


Re: what isn't a UFO?
because context matters. when they're talking about god, it's about god. when they're talking about judah, or egypt, or persia, or babylon, it's judah or egypt or persia of babylon, respectively. it's not "god" when it says "judah." get it? you have to read the verse, not make it up in your head.
Here is a clue, who is the One with the sceptre??? Who really ruled, above the kings?? Who kept on ruling, even if some king whathisname bit it?? Who was the Father of Shiloh??? Whoo was to look down from afar??
according to the gospels, jesus was of the house of david, yes. the problem isn't there. it's that the house of david was deposed from 586 BC until the present. jesus's people -- the jews -- did not "gather unto" him. jesus never sat on that throne in jerusalem, and never was literal king of israel. even supposing he re-fulfills this prophecy, it was broken during the exile.
He was still on the throne in that starship right over Shiloh. Who cares about deposed little kings??
uh, no, read samuel again. "shiloh" is the name of the city where the ark of the covenant resides until david brings it to jerusalem.
So what??? Having a village named something doesn't mean there ain't the real macoy elsewhere! Ever heard of a town called Zion??? It is in the US. So???
no, i did. it's called "content." i thought this thread should have some of it. the verse from samuel, about establishing david's throne, is the same as the verse about establishing judah's rule. the one you're pretending is about a UFO.
I was not pretending anything about a verse in Samuel. I don't argue that some mickey mouse kings ruled, and supposedly represented God in the so doing. So??
david is a minor player on his own throne. only you.
The ultimate fulfillment was not a dying flesh king there. It was speaking of some greater realities, having to do with the future.
Abraham, David, Noah, Adam, and the ass that spoke are all minor platers compared to the king OF kings. Yes.
again, you write as if 75% of the bible doesn't matter.
The king of all kings is more important than the little kings. They are important as well. Not even Elvis is as important!
no. why don't you. this is afterall all about your little favored opinion. the one that disagrees with common sense, the bible, history, science, and everyone else who can actually read. why don't you try some humble pie and admit that you're not being imparted special knowledge from god's UFO mind-control ray, and you're just making stuff up.
Face it, the star that moved and guided men is not made up. Admit it. What you seem to think is special is not ignoring the obviously stated facts of the bible, like the star.
i find it amusing when you post a source that disagrees with the specific point you cite them to demonstrate.
Too bad, I use a source for one ting, not all tings.
look, what i told came from knowledge and research about housing in first century ad israel. it doesn't matter what definition you pull up, "inn" would be the lodging place someone would have stayed in in 1st century israel -- someone's house.
The fact it was small does not matter. Long as it was clean, had good food, and sleeping quarters. The Inn was full. Deal with it.
sounds more like the content of revelation than matthew. "until shiloh come" is like "kingdom come" in english. it means "the end." it's an expression.
Based on reality. Part of the reality is that the messiah will bring and end to man's rule. precisely. In any language.
if the text describes a UFO, we might talk. ezekiel describes somethign strange, yes, but it's not a UFO. and it does not show up elsewhere
It describes God flying on something, sitting on a throne. To claim it never flew anywhere else is ludicrous. You have no idea where it went. If you saw it in Jesus' day, you might think it was a star.
"manger" comes from the french, meaning "to eat." a manger is a troph for feeding animals. jesus was born in a place for keeping animals -- the basement of a first century ad israeli house.
Maybe. Or maybe the animals mangered out in the back in a manger!?
uh, no. when it's talking about the town, it's talking about the town. when it's talking about the end-times, it's talking about the end-times. neither of those are opinions -- they're context.
And the context of the Christmas star prophesy is that it is the messiah. Period. So??
your sentance is not even internally consistent. and anyways. you're comparing two different stories. in matthew, joseph and mary are from bethlehem -- there is none of thise bit about herod's survey, and them having to travel and stay anywhere. the house there is probably their own. in luke. they are from nazareth, and travel to bethlehem for the census, and stay in a barn. but there are no magi in luke, only heralding angels.
Not every detail has to be mentioned in each gospel. Why do you think there are 4??? We get the details looking at the big picture. Mary had the angel appear to her in Nazareth. They had to travel for a census. That is another topic.
Wherever the house was, it was where the family now lived, and fled likely that night to Egypt. That rules out the manger.
persia was the only country that would have cared about a new king in israel.
Irrelevant , you will notice it was not countries that followed the star!!! It was men. It was what they cared about that is important. Get it??
it was about 400 miles from the closest point of the persia empire at that time. it probably took a while, yes. no more than two years. no one is debating that.
OK, you concede that part of the time frame. OK.
the bible does not say. and, in any case, stars stick around longer than UFOs.
Yes it does, the time frame is laid out. Certain things had to happen. Besides, this starship was here before the stars!!! So it did stick around longer. A lot longer, we would presume, because this universe is only thousands of years old.
and just how would you say that in klingon?
The people standing by heard it, so it was in human speech format.
and i suppose the destruction of jericho and the conquest of the holy land weren't "physical only" either. nor was the manna from heaven. not the water from a stone. nor the parting of the reed sea.
There were spiritual elements to some things, of course. The parting of the sea was likely more than physical only,
one more time. maybe big letters will help.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT IN RECORDS FROM 500 BC, MADE BY THE PROPHET EZRA IN THE BOOK OF THE SAME NAME!
get that? the bible. not the pharisees. THE BIBLE! those suspect records you're talking about are
THE BIBLE
No you are talking about that. I was talking about any records that Israel controlled at the time. Supporting evidences. Ezra not listing it coming from Babylon, etc is not that important.
Can you show good records of the ark NOT being in the second temple!!!? Ha.
sure i can. there it is in the east sky on christmas eve. must be flying! how would it ascend to heaven with jesus if it couldn't fly? and noah's ark flew too. how else would it have been kept safe from the crashing waves?.
You are dreaming. The ark was a boat. The starship flew. I didn't make this up.
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 2:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 1:41 PM simple has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 236 of 278 (430049)
10-23-2007 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by simple
10-23-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Frog dreams flushed V2
The place before Babel was not that high up. Otherwise we could not build a tower up to it. You seem to think it changed. No. The universe we live in was separated from it
I was not asking about the Heaven at the time of Babel or before it. For the fifth time now I am asking about the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death. Do you know that Jesus died after the time of Babel? I am sure you do, but if not I can give you a brief summary of the events in question. Can you seriously avoid answering a question for this long? I will repeat again:
quote:
This is the "abode" that I am curious about. This one that Jesus ascended to after "taking great lengths to prove he was still human".
quote:
How high up was this place? Is it still there? When did it become non-physical? (or alternately - when did it change to become a place that pilots cannot ascend to) What is this place? (Unless you wish to provide an alternate I would choose to use Heaven V2 from this point on)
How many times do you intend to avoid these questions?
The New Jerusalem I think you call it V2, Is not in the universe of the physical. It is separate. That happened 4400 years ago, that the spiritual was separated, or divided from the physical.
Do I actually have to quote yet again the time when you said Jesus created "New Jerusalem" after his death? Now you have switched to say this place predates him?
My ideas are BASED on the bible, and fit history.
I know thats what you believe. If I shared your view I would not be debating it. My idea on vampire frogs was based on nothing much at all, hence the reason I have continued to ask for this debate to be about your story and not mine.
The ascending was after the star of Bethlehem. So, it is not relevant to the topic.
I know that Jesus died after he was born. You can insist that I am confused all you want, but until you can provide a quote you are accomplishing nothing. I am up to five sepperate posts where I have asked about the attributes of the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death and you have refused on all other attempts to provide me with answers.
You have settled, to my satisfaction the attributes of the Heaven at the time of Babel. You have settled to my satisfaction the Heaven that Jesus created after his death once he ascended to the mysterious version two. Further attempts to confuse, switch, or blend these seperate discussions is simply dishonest. Carry on if you wish, but I intend to persist until the questions are answered or you retract, run away, or change your story.
The starship of the Almighty will no doubt be in the future, as well as it was in the past. There is no reason to think it did not fly long before this universe was created.
You see? This is yet another example of you avoiding the questions. I did not ask for the attributes or timescales of the starship - I asked for the attributes of the heaven that Jesus ascended to before he created New Jerusalem. Version two!
This is exactly why I said that I must insist that you either use my terms defined as I stated or present alternatives. You still manage to palm the pea long after I requested that you stop this dishonest behavior.
I answered the questions. You don't.
I have shown examples where you have refused to answer questions. Care to show where I have done the same? I refuse to answer my own, that is true. I also refuse to answer the ones that are off topic for the reasons that I have stated multipe times now. The only solution I can see from this point on is for a moderator to step in and rule my religious beliefs and faith in the bible as either on topic or off. I will not be suspended due to your requests for me to do so.
If you can't answer your own questions, why think anyone else can?
I still have a few outstanding questions regarding your story. Are you seriously suggesting that I should make shit up about the attributes of the Heaven that you have presented in your story? Why should I start making stuff up about your story? Thats the stupidest thing I have heard on these forums ( and I have seen plenty of stupidity)
If your words were clear, no need to change them.
I changed them from present to past state, divided them into seperate lines. This was at your request because you felt that having them in a sentence was gibberish.
As for what relates and what doesn't you are not the judge.
I have asked the same questions regarding one simple aspect of your story five times now and you still have not answered them. Who else do you suggest should decide what relates and what doesn't? You manage to say something each time you respond but its never what I ask for. Suggest a judge and lets bring him or her in to decide.
Many of your questions were as ridiculous as your froggy answers. One tries to answer them, and gets this sort of drivel.
Feel free to provide quotes and justification any time you are ready. I am simply attempting to understand your story and must ask questions that pertain to the topic. If you find the questions "ridiculous" perhaps it is due to the nature of your story? If you find the four points I presented to be drivel I am perfectly willing to provide examples, as I suggested when I posted them the first time.
The Christmas star had supernatural qualities. Like a ship, it moved to guide men to a house. What about it?
Interesting story, will it stand up to questioning? Will you answer the questions if they are made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 2:26 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 5:08 PM Vacate has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 237 of 278 (430051)
10-23-2007 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by arachnophilia
10-23-2007 2:46 AM


Re: still more things that are really UFOs
arach:
in your book, god himself might as well be the UFO. anywhere god appears, or talks, or does anything? that's a UFO. the ladder jacob sees? levitation ray. the man he wrestles with in the desert? that giant silver robot from "the day the earth stood still." the pillar of fire? a tripod from "war of the worlds." burning bush? roswell wreckage. enoch and elijah? alien abductees. the bit about no homosexuality? only god gets to do the anal probes. animal sacrifices? cow mutilation. i could really go on like this all day, just making shit up like you.
Except the stuff you make up is better.
Given any thought to writing paperbacks about Bible UFOs?
Getting rich off the gullible, retiring early?
You do have to keep a straight face while you say it all, though.
That's the toughest part.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 2:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 1:09 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 238 of 278 (430065)
10-23-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by simple
10-22-2007 5:35 PM


Re: Don't worry, its Simple
But that wouldn't mean that heaven was any closer, only that the people thought it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 5:35 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 5:11 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 239 of 278 (430122)
10-23-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Archer Opteryx
10-23-2007 5:34 AM


Re: still more things that are really UFOs
Except the stuff you make up is better.
thank you! i thought so too
Given any thought to writing paperbacks about Bible UFOs?
Getting rich off the gullible, retiring early?
i think it's been done, actually. i mean, erich von daniken, of course, but i think i've this one specific idea blown up into a whole books before. i mean, amazon returns some 180 hits for "bible" and "ufo"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-23-2007 5:34 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 240 of 278 (430131)
10-23-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by simple
10-23-2007 3:35 AM


Re: what isn't a UFO?
Here is a clue, who is the One with the sceptre??? Who really ruled, above the kings?? Who kept on ruling, even if some king whathisname bit it?? Who was the Father of Shiloh??? Whoo was to look down from afar??
the thing is that not everything in the bible means god. some sentances have other subjects. you wouldn't say that isaiah condemnations the babylonian kings is really isaiah condemning god -- well, no actually, that is just what you said here.
He was still on the throne in that starship right over Shiloh. Who cares about deposed little kings??
because the verse -- the first thing -- you mentioned is about judah being the father of earthly kings. not a spaceship.
So what??? Having a village named something doesn't mean there ain't the real macoy elsewhere! Ever heard of a town called Zion??? It is in the US. So???
so you have to pay attention to context.
no, i did. it's called "content." i thought this thread should have some of it. the verse from samuel, about establishing david's throne, is the same as the verse about establishing judah's rule. the one you're pretending is about a UFO.
I was not pretending anything about a verse in Samuel.
no, you were pretending something about the verse in genesis, the one about judah. the verse in samuel is the same prophecy but slightly more specific.
I don't argue that some mickey mouse kings ruled, and supposedly represented God in the so doing. So??
you really have complete and utter disregard for the bible, don't you? no one who's read samuel would call david and solomon "mickey mouse" kings. and again, you are literally attacking the very authors of the bible -- david (supposedly) wrote most of the psalms and solomon (supposedly) wrote song of songs. you really can't built any credibility for your case if you take every opportunity to speak poorly of the bible.
The ultimate fulfillment was not a dying flesh king there. It was speaking of some greater realities, having to do with the future.
except that the prophecy had to do with real reality. "ultimate fulfillments" are excuses for the plainly evident truth of broken prophecy. god says david's family will rule forever -- but for 600 years, they did not.
Abraham, David, Noah, Adam, and the ass that spoke are all minor platers compared to the king OF kings. Yes.
the only talking ass here...
again, you write as if 75% of the bible doesn't matter.
The king of all kings is more important than the little kings. They are important as well. Not even Elvis is as important!
i'm really starting to think you're a troll. you can't seem to take this seriously.
Face it, the star that moved and guided men is not made up. Admit it. What you seem to think is special is not ignoring the obviously stated facts of the bible, like the star.
"the star." not "the UFO." stars do move -- some of them in strange ways, appearing to wander. in greek, they called these stars planetai, or "wanderers." again, astrology. astrology astrology astrology.
Too bad, I use a source for one ting, not all tings.
you used a source that said the opposite of what you were trying to say.
The fact it was small does not matter. Long as it was clean, had good food, and sleeping quarters. The Inn was full. Deal with it.
i'm not sure what you think you're arguing about.
Based on reality. Part of the reality is that the messiah will bring and end to man's rule. precisely. In any language.
...which has not happened yet, and will at the end of times. it's talking about the end of times.
It describes God flying on something, sitting on a throne. To claim it never flew anywhere else is ludicrous. You have no idea where it went.
ezekiel saw something special. let me phrase this in a language you'll understand -- ezekiel's vision was spiritual only. there was no physical substance to it; it was in his head, shown to him by god, to teach some mystical point. it's not something god gets around in, it was something spiritual-only for ezekiel and ezekiel only.
nowhere else in the bible is it ever described again.
If you saw it in Jesus' day, you might think it was a star.
if i saw it in jesus's day, i would have described it like ezekiel did.
Maybe. Or maybe the animals mangered out in the back in a manger!?
words have meanings. i really wish you'd learn that.
And the context of the Christmas star prophesy is that it is the messiah. Period. So??
so one verse in your OP has nothing to do with the other, except that jesus is from the tribe of judah.
Not every detail has to be mentioned in each gospel. Why do you think there are 4???
because there were four different stories. more than four, actually. like i said, i knew you wouldn't understand this point -- you're basically asking at what point gilgamesh visited noah, before or after he got drunk.
persia was the only country that would have cared about a new king in israel.
Irrelevant , you will notice it was not countries that followed the star!!! It was men. It was what they cared about that is important. Get it??
i'm continually amazed at what you think passes for an argument. the astrologers were very likely sent as diplomats to visit the new king of israel, giving gifts from the royal treasury of persia. they were men, yes. who lived in a country. and were probably sent by that country.
OK, you concede that part of the time frame. OK.
it's not a concession. i never claimed otherwise. just that the bible does not say. because it doesn't.
Yes it does, the time frame is laid out. Certain things had to happen. Besides, this starship was here before the stars!!! So it did stick around longer. A lot longer, we would presume, because this universe is only thousands of years old.
*headdesk*
so a UFO hovered over bethlehem (or nazareth, or wherever) for two years straight, and it took astrologers from persia to notice it? nobody else, not the king, not his court, not the pharisees, no one else saw it? why was it news to herod and his priests?
and just how would you say that in klingon?
The people standing by heard it, so it was in human speech format.
you sure it wasn't mind control telepathy?
There were spiritual elements to some things, of course. The parting of the sea was likely more than physical only,
you just keep on making stuff up, don't you? now, you are discreditting miracles.
No you are talking about that. I was talking about any records that Israel controlled at the time. Supporting evidences. Ezra not listing it coming from Babylon, etc is not that important.

YES IT IS

because that's the point it stops appearing in records. not in jesus's time. it's like arguing that jimmy hoffa went missing yesterday. we know when he went missing because of when the evidence for his existence stops. that's the definition of "missing."
Can you show good records of the ark NOT being in the second temple!!!? Ha.
YES! the book of ezra, which does not mention the ark.
You are dreaming. The ark was a boat. The starship flew. I didn't make this up.
well, this boat flew! ha!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 3:35 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 6:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024