Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christmas Star Explained
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 256 of 278 (430566)
10-26-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by simple
10-24-2007 5:45 AM


Re: Who Beamed up the Ark??
a common misreading. at least this is something you didn't make up on your own. "lucifer" is just the latin word for "provider of light" and generally refers to the planet venus. the planet venus, btw, is very often mistaken for UFOs. maybe the devil has a UFO?
Right, he was the bearer of the light of God. A physical interpretation has fallen to a planet, but there are older spiritual realities at play here.
actually, "newer dogmatic interpretations" are at play. not "older spiritual realities." this is just yet another excuse to read a text however you please, ignore the actual context and content, and claim special spiritual knowledge on your side.
*i* say, i know better than you. the holy spirit told me that the devil is really a UFO.
No. God is talking through the king directly to the devil there. Naturally, any king that would be possessed by the devil would have traits that are similar. But the true meaning is not to a worldly king there at all. Natural man cannot understand that.
no, clearly, one needs to be insane to understand many of your points. living in the real world seems to be a hinderance. reading the bible -- that'll just get in the way.
Only if the prohesy was supposed to be about mickey mouse kings. If I am right, it was not, and God and the bible are right! If you are right God and the bible are wrong, and mickey mouse.
Weight those scales, see which way they tilt, now will you??
no, that's just the problem. you can claim that god and the bible are on your side. they're not. like i have continually pointed out, god specifically says why he has broken the prophecy, and promises to re-fulfill it. this is a matter of the bible -- and making up excuses that it doesn't really mean what it says isn't going to help your case.
Then that makes me right, I said it was about God's office, throne, and authority. Thanks for that.
no, context matters! it's about the authority of whatever context it's used in. when it's used in babylon, it's babylonian authority. here's, it about JUDAH'S authority. i cant believe that 250 posts later, you still have not understood this very basic point that people have been correcting you on since your OP.
The word and Spirit are a symbol of the same. They comfort us. A stick comforts squat. The imagery is that His is the office, the throne, the ensign, and the....you got it...Sceptre!!! Over us no less.
"thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." do i need to break down this whole psalm for you? "the lord is my shepherd." it uses the imagery of a shepherd throughout.
Right! By GOD. He is the One that has the sceptre.
in the original verse, in genesis 49, it is judah being granted authority. the "sceptre" in that verse is judah's authority. not a UFO.
No. It is about the SCEPTRE!!!!!!! God's office, throne authority, and including starship, and kings!
it's really obvious that you don't have much to add here. you plainly cannot read a verse for what it actually says, or means. you just wanna see UFOs. i can't help you.
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
" 1. something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail
1. standard (as rallying point), signal
2. standard (pole)
3. ensign, signal "
What was lifted up over Shiloh??? The star!! And boy can it sail. It certainly was a signal for the wise men! How much more clear could this stuff be?????
it's pretty clear when you're drawing false connections, and making stuff up, yes.
No, the Hebrew really means that. And the Christmas star really was a sign. And more.
the hebrew? what hebrew, where? in what verse? let me phrase it like this: so you're going to have to do a little better than "the hebrew" when you reference an english word not in relation to a verse, but in relation to a word you introduced.
What the Prince of peace brings in is related to His birth. It was not finished then, but in progress.
that's great. it's been in progress for the last 2,000 years, then. in the meantime, war still happens. including all those inquisition and crusades. so he hasn't exactly succeded yet. and if the reference was to "peace on earth" missing it by 2,000 years does not exactly make the case that it means jesus.
Of Giggy said that he was right. Noah was granted eternal life. I plan to have a beer with him.
oh, and it's also compatible with battlestar galactica, btw. noah's boat was a battlestar, afterall. look, i could really go on all day with this sort of nonsense and arbitrary connection drawing. what you're doing is silly, and irresponsible with the text.
I never said He was chained to the thing!!??? But you show me where He showed up, and then show me it was the Father, not the son, and we can talk turkey. Even then, you need to show where the wheels were not simply just out of sight of man at the time.
see, this is just the problem. you have an ad-hoc explanation ready for everything. "parked somewhere out of sight" and "cloaking devices" and the identity of god -- you're just introducing more and more material that the authors of the bible didn't include. you're adding to the bible, saying they didn't know the truth. only you do. are you a false prophet, simple? the bible says to stone you.
stars disappear every morning. maybe you've noticed that it's hard to see them in the day time. just one really big one. they were glad that it HADN'T gone anywhere, after herod turned out to be a false lead.
Let's see them disappear every morning for over a year, and you got a case! Until then, be amazed.
you must not get out much. stars disappear every morning. for a year. for ten years. for 100 years. for 1,000 years. for as long as the world has been rotating. surely you have noticed this simple fact of life that the sun rises every morning?
I meant that they came from Persia, all of them, for sure. Not that the king was as thick as bricks.
the king was "thick as bricks" because he wasn't an astrologer. nor was anyone else in israel. which is why no one noticed a new and significant star. but people from persia would have, because there were alot of astrologically-inclined people there. which is why the king sent astrologers. why persia? as i keep explaining, only persia had reason to care.
Not at all. The stuff that the Babylonians took, or wrecked did not include the ark. Of course. The ark was safe. The people God called to deal with Israel did what they were to do. He was on top of the situation.
sure. maybe the ark was hidden safely somewhere. the problem is that it never came back from its hiding place, because it's not in the second temple that ezra built under cyrus the great. and we know that, because it's not in his book. any other story you create is ad-hoc mental masturbation. no one knows where it went, not even you, because it simply disappears from history at that point.
for you to even claim that god took the ark when jesus rose from the dead, you would first half to show that the ark was even there. until that point, the default assumption is that it went missing 600 years earlier, around the time it was last documented to be anywhere.
He may have took it in the starship for a bit, for all we know.
and i love how "UFO!" is your go-to explanation.
A starship can be far away, or closer, that has to do with moving. Unlike a star.
a starship cannot be both far away and close at the same time. that was sort of the point. it was close by for all of jesus's life, but far enough away that no one could see it.
First you make stuff up, that a country, and not just wise men gave the gifts, then you play 'name that dreamed up country'. Foolishness.
no, UFOs are foolishness. actual analysis of the story is not. magi were the official astrologers of the persian religion, zoroastrianism. they were advisors to the king, in much the same way prophets were to jewish kings. the place we know about magi from? persia. the home of the religion they belonged to? persia. the king they served? persian. the gifts they brought? royal. people who weren't kings did not have gold, frankincense, and myrh. that's sort of the point, that jesus was a king. they were the gifts that one would give to a king -- and the person who had them already was probably a king.
Who thought the wise men were poor??? The poor didn't generally go travelling around the world, following a star!
and certainly not with gifts that would have come from a royal treasury.
you wouldn't know an argument if you saw one.
Well, from this thread, you might have something. Work on that.
why don't you work on it. try thinking rationally, for a change. start reading the bible, especially in larger sections. pay attention to context, and meaning, and stop trying to draw arbitrary connections. stop looking for UFOs. stop reading preconceived notions into the book, and just read what's on the page. and quit the ad-hoc imaginative mental gymnastics. all you're doing is belittling the bible, and god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by simple, posted 10-24-2007 5:45 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 8:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 257 of 278 (430573)
10-26-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by simple
10-25-2007 9:34 PM


Re: Clarifying Positions
I gave my opinion, that, had they reached it, they may have gotten eternal life somehow. But, really, we don't know that, do we?? How it would have affected them, or what it was exactly like I don't see why you want to pretend you know?
I only know what you have said so far. Do you now object to my choice of wording? ("both physical and spiritual in such a way that people could build a tower too it and gain eternal life") How is it that you think I am pretending to know anything beyond what information you have provided?
From your demonstrated tendency to try and make the bible, and God look silly
That is not my postition. Quit attempting to distort what I have clearly said about my position. I think you are trying to make the bible and God look silly, I have demonstrated why I think you have done this and now you are insisting that my summaries of your position somehow become my ideas and its my fault God appears the fool.
I can only guess that is the reason.
Stop guessing then and read what I have written. My suggestion about the qualities of the star as decribed in the bible are sufficient as my stance in this discussion. My stance is not the purpose of this discussion. This thread, and my purpose here is to analyse your position and see if it justified as a valid stance to take. I have stated why I think its invalid and you seem unable to comrehend this distinction.
The other acts of His in creating earth, or visiting it with angels were business trips, like angels make here.
I will add this to the list of additions you have made that are not supported by a person who reads what is written in the Bible.
Well, you could admit you don't have a clue. If you want to parrot my guess on that issue, you could say it could still be in use, but not in such a primary role.
Good, then my summary of your position is accurate and my "clue" is not nessesary for this discussion as I have stated many times now.
Repeating to you that it was not a change IN our laws, but a universe change with different laws doesn't seem to keep you from misrepresenting me. So we must note that you do that on purpose.
Had old laws, has current laws, will have old laws again. I hope that you all can take note of this.
Do some homework, before trying to comment.
I did, I looked back at what you have posted and accurately described the position you have taken. Do not accuse me of misrepresentation when its clear that you have said this repeatedly. Again in this post.
But they were not our laws, they were not our fundamental forces, it was not our light, etc. The created laws changed, yes, and we ARE the change, and soon, they will change back, this is a temporary state. Write that down, it's a good one.
Had old laws, has new laws, will have old laws again. "The created laws changed" - thats a pretty accurate desription of the statement I made about your statement. Now that we have ran it around in a complete circle its obvious we do agree on this change - and hence my original problem with this is that science cannot study and understand the incredible beauty that God created for us. (according to your story, not mine.)
That you could say till the cows come home, but not be able to prove it. The laws of physics are laws that apply to this temporary state, physical only universe.
I have proved it several times now. This very post has you just saying "The created laws changed" and thats what I have issue with. Once the cows come home I am hoping that you will finally admit to the position you keep taking and denying in the same breath.
quote:
Unknowable...
To science, yes. Of course.
Hence my postition that your stance is stupid. Why (in your story) did God bother to give us a brain if we are not meant to use it?
The mistake is only yours, as always! And you try to blame it on God and the bible as always.
No, and I will repeat as many times as required. I blame you for misinterpreting the bible in an effort to make things up, in the act of twisting the bible into a work of fiction you have created a fictional God that is petty and foolish.
He gets around, He has pleasure, and wheels!! Any more questions??
Yes, why do you instist on making God look like hes mildly retarded instead of omnipotent and infinitely powerfull?
This was likely a spiritual accommodation for spirits with business on earth. Whatever it was, it was a part of heaven that was just fine to be here as long as it was.
Had he been aware of this concern before the issue presented itself (omnipotence) he could have created/moved Heaven long before he even made earth let alone man! He was only concerned about us after we discovered a loophole in his rules to reach Heaven.
So you are suggesting that Angels wanting to marry women and conduct business was more important that creating one version of Heaven that did not require modification or relocation? Not having the temptation 2-3000 feet above those poor souls heads would have alleviated the need for relocation, creation of languages, shifting of continents and rampant mountain building. The solution is obvious even if you or the God of your story cannot comprehend it.
The wickedness of man needed to be dampened, limited.
So God found it nessesary to have Heaven 2-3000 feet above these wicked people to tempt them and see if they really would be wicked? Was he unaware that these wicked people would try to reach Heaven and gain eternal life? Was he not quite omnipotent enough to get it?
Man takes the good purposes of things, like a spiritual level nearby for our good, or a wooden club, and then uses it wickedly. Don't blame God. You seem to love to do that.
Aye, your version of God. This wee little Godlet is easy to point fingers at and laugh. One with forsight and compassion would not have stuck a giant neon light above Babel saying "sinners loophole to Heaven located here". ( This is figurative, and I suggest that you not use it as something I have proposed as fact. )
No. But if they have a case for the star being something else, they can make it. And we can look at if it leaves God as true, and the bible, or not. Simple.
You mean if they can suggest an alternative to a UFO flying little Godlet unable to make one creation and stick to it? I have seen this from many posters on this board and as I said before - It provides a much longer lasting appeal.
Great, maybe it could be something your purple frogs could use as a toilet area??
Sure if you want. This is your story and you are free to add what you wish.
If God had a bible that misinterpreted something like the ensign of the birth of the messiah, I would save it, in case there was ever a toilet paper shortage.
You won't need to visit the supermarket for a while, you have just suggested a viable method of wiping your arse. Its a shame that you would suggest wiping asses with the bible but that is your choice.
Matthew 2:2 writes:
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
How have you meaningfully addressed the Christmas star, and the hows and wherefores of why, etc?? Off hand, all I recall is that you made a little statement that you think the bible is wrong, and it was a star.
Correct, you could look back and see that I quoted from the bible and made the decision to read what it had said as what it meant to say. So what? This thread is not about my story anyways, this is your mess and I have repeated the reasons that I do not agree with your version of events. Are you now also going to carry on about this also? Why this need to hear my side of the story just to test the validity of yours?
You hide your lack of belief, or religious beliefs, whatever the case may be.
Yes, its my belief and I have the rights to do with it as I please. Had I wished for my beliefs to come under question I would have proposed a new thread! Starting to sink in yet?
I have found that atheists generally are almost boastful of their atheism. Since you won't tell us, maybe I should guess? I can think of two types that I have noticed some hesitancy to be straight about their true beliefs. But, no... no need to go there.
Resorting to pure speculation to fluff up your side? Its no wonder I find you so amusing.
If all you offer stating you believe in it is purple frogs, fine. People can take that for what it is worth. But don't think that leaves you in a position to throw stones at the bible, loved, and believed by millions.
Though I initially refused to specify what I felt the bible was saying about the “star of Bethlehem” as I felt it was off topic in a discussion about your story, I later presented a fictional story based on a Stephen King story as an attempt at humor in hopes of it alleviating your need for my alternate story even though it was off topic. It was clearly not a factual account of my faith, belief, or religion and I did specify that it was a baseless story concocted from a modern day fictional horror story.
You have since made repeated assertions that this was a statement of my faith based on my poor choice in the use of the word “believe” that I have since quoted, elaborated, and clarified. Its plainly obvious that I do not deny the use of the word, but it is also obvious that you have attempted to use this situation as some form of grounds to accuse me of lying. I have not lied, I have made many attempts to show that I have not lied and you simply will not accept my clarification about this situation. I have asked for nothing from you but clarification of your position but you continue to attempt to misrepresent mine on one issue.
Your misrepresentation is further evidence of your continued underhanded tactics that you have used throughout this discussion. Though I have made some errors in my understanding of your position I have repeatedly asked for clarification and have adjusted accordingly. The story in question is yours and asking for clarity on your stance to alleviate misunderstandings has been my main goal. You however are obviously not interested in the same tactic. Misrepresentation is your prime goal on this one issue and you have not one single time shown any effort to change this tactic.
Further attempts to use misrepresentation about the story I presented will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. Further attempts to portray me as a liar due to my mistaken use of the word “belief” will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. I do not expect you to retract as you have not done so at any point in time so far, as such I will no longer waste my time on this particular off topic accusation and obvious dishonest behavior - I will simply quote the above statement.
I am also not "throwing stones at the Bible", I am throwing stones at your butchered interpretations of the bible. At some point I hope that this will sink in.
Neither. I am the deceiver buster. The new testament was long after Sodom or the garden. It is also clear that Jesus never came as the son of man there. Pathetic.
Right. Four Heavens, three Jesus, a UFO and a petty God with limited powers. Keep on bustin'!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by simple, posted 10-25-2007 9:34 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:58 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 259 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 5:01 PM Vacate has not replied
 Message 262 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 11:37 PM Vacate has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 258 of 278 (430574)
10-26-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Vacate
10-26-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Clarifying Positions
quote:
He gets around, He has pleasure, and wheels!! Any more questions??
Yes, why do you instist on making God look like hes mildly retarded instead of omnipotent and infinitely powerfull?
Sorry to make a post of little substance, but these statements brought to mind God as "Special Ed" from Crank Yankers.
"Yaaaaaay!!!! I wanna go to Hawaii! Yaaaaaaay!!!!"

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Vacate, posted 10-26-2007 1:33 AM Vacate has not replied

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


Message 259 of 278 (430676)
10-26-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Vacate
10-26-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Clarifying Positions
Had he been aware of this concern before the issue presented itself (omnipotence) he could have created/moved Heaven long before he even made earth let alone man! He was only concerned about us after we discovered a loophole in his rules to reach Heaven.
So you are suggesting that Angels wanting to marry women and conduct business was more important that creating one version of Heaven that did not require modification or relocation? Not having the temptation 2-3000 feet above those poor souls heads would have alleviated the need for relocation, creation of languages, shifting of continents and rampant mountain building. The solution is obvious even if you or the God of your story cannot comprehend it.
...
So God found it nessesary to have Heaven 2-3000 feet above these wicked people to tempt them and see if they really would be wicked? Was he unaware that these wicked people would try to reach Heaven and gain eternal life? Was he not quite omnipotent enough to get it?
the problem is actually not so much with simple, here. it is with the bible. the god of genesis is rather petty, violent, human, and not-so-omnipotent. heaven, in genesis, is literally just overhead as a physical place.
what simple is trying to do is rectify this rather plain truth with the equally plain truth that we don't see things like that today. the standard inerrantist's method is by saying that both actually mean the same thing. simple takes the minority route, and claims that something changed. he then goes the extra step, and makes up stories to go with it. in this respect, he's like a less coherent pseudepigraphica.
what i take issue with is the butchering of the bible that goes with this. insisting, in many cases, that the bible just does not offer the whole story. and in several places, that the bible was written by evil coniving jewish conspirators and christ killers, who intentionally left out bits of his story (600 years before the fact), to cover their asses. i also take issue with the "decoder ring" version of the bible, that we need our extra-special holy spiritTM decoder ring to understand the bible, and if we just merely read the words on the page, as written, we're missing the big picture. this is really just an excuse to make stuff up, claim it as divine, and if we're not agreeing we must be heathens. it's really simple claiming that he's a prophet out of one side of his mouth, and out of the other saying that god is a liar. after all, god wrote the book (according to simple) and didn't write it in such a way that it's of any actual use (according to simple's arguments) because we need god to read it to us. this is, as you and i have both brought up, basically what the bible says a false prophet will do -- lead people astray, away from god, claiming to be from god. i think we know what the bible says to do with false prophets.
Though I initially refused to specify what I felt the bible was saying about the “star of Bethlehem” as I felt it was off topic in a discussion about your story, I later presented a fictional story based on a Stephen King story as an attempt at humor in hopes of it alleviating your need for my alternate story even though it was off topic. It was clearly not a factual account of my faith, belief, or religion and I did specify that it was a baseless story concocted from a modern day fictional horror story.
You have since made repeated assertions that this was a statement of my faith based on my poor choice in the use of the word “believe” that I have since quoted, elaborated, and clarified. Its plainly obvious that I do not deny the use of the word, but it is also obvious that you have attempted to use this situation as some form of grounds to accuse me of lying. I have not lied, I have made many attempts to show that I have not lied and you simply will not accept my clarification about this situation. I have asked for nothing from you but clarification of your position but you continue to attempt to misrepresent mine on one issue.
Your misrepresentation is further evidence of your continued underhanded tactics that you have used throughout this discussion. Though I have made some errors in my understanding of your position I have repeatedly asked for clarification and have adjusted accordingly. The story in question is yours and asking for clarity on your stance to alleviate misunderstandings has been my main goal. You however are obviously not interested in the same tactic. Misrepresentation is your prime goal on this one issue and you have not one single time shown any effort to change this tactic.
Further attempts to use misrepresentation about the story I presented will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. Further attempts to portray me as a liar due to my mistaken use of the word “belief” will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. I do not expect you to retract as you have not done so at any point in time so far, as such I will no longer waste my time on this particular off topic accusation and obvious dishonest behavior - I will simply quote the above statement.
i don't think he's doing it on purpose. i think he just doesn't know any better. he makes up stuff to explain the bible, and connect disparate writings, and he assumes that when you do the same (in a much more mocking fashion) that you actually mean it. because he actually means it. your reading purple frogs into the star of bethlehem, to him, is no different than him reading a UFO into it. it just makes less sense, in his mind. he similarly rejected my proposal that the star was actually the ark of the covenant (which was also noah's ark, which was also a UFO). and that actually made more sense (symbolically) than any of his proposals.
it's clear that he's just making stuff up wherever he sees fit, and it has no bearing on sense, reality, or "the holy spirit." he just happens to like his nonsense story over the other nonsense stories we've offered, regardless of the obvious degree of nonsense. why? he's dealing with a nonsense premise regarding the bible, and further ad-hoc nonsense is the only way he can seemingly make sense of something that was never truly meant to make the kind of sense he assumes must be there.
and now, he's being called on the nonsense results, because they have been built up to such a degree that they no longer resemble their foundation in the slightest, and his results disagree with his own premise. in defending god and the bible the way he has, he has made them look silly beyond belief.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Vacate, posted 10-26-2007 1:33 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 5:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 263 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 260 of 278 (430678)
10-26-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by arachnophilia
10-26-2007 5:01 PM


Re: Clarifying Positions
the problem is actually not so much with simple, here. it is with the bible. the god of genesis is rather petty, violent, human, and not-so-omnipotent. heaven, in genesis, is literally just overhead as a physical place.
The God of Genesis 2:5 on. The God of Genesis 1-2:4 is quite different, transcendent, but also somewhat separated from the creation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 5:01 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 278 (430702)
10-26-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by arachnophilia
10-26-2007 12:58 AM


The Frst Christmas Light !
actually, "newer dogmatic interpretations" are at play. not "older spiritual realities." this is just yet another excuse to read a text however you please, ignore the actual context and content, and claim special spiritual knowledge on your side.
*i* say, i know better than you. the holy spirit told me that the devil is really a UFO.
No, it is pretty clear who God is talking to. Another instance of God talking to satan through a king is in Isa 14.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
As is is for the one king, so it is for the other ting.
no, clearly, one needs to be insane to understand many of your points. living in the real world seems to be a hinderance. reading the bible -- that'll just get in the way.
Depends if you read it as a spiritually minded man, or a natural man.
no, that's just the problem. you can claim that god and the bible are on your side. they're not. like i have continually pointed out, god specifically says why he has broken the prophecy, and promises to re-fulfill it. this is a matter of the bible -- and making up excuses that it doesn't really mean what it says isn't going to help your case.
Where does He say He broke the prophesy??
no, context matters! it's about the authority of whatever context it's used in. when it's used in babylon, it's babylonian authority. here's, it about JUDAH'S authority. i cant believe that 250 posts later, you still have not understood this very basic point that people have been correcting you on since your OP.
Nonsense. What is to not depart from the land, and people of Judah was something in particular. Not a stick. A sceptre. That was what would stay, the office of God, the rule and presence, etc of God, for a certain time period only, till Jesus came. Period.
"thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." do i need to break down this whole psalm for you? "the lord is my shepherd." it uses the imagery of a shepherd throughout.
And, WHO was that Shepherd??! God. The rod was a symbol of that office, an ensign. Like the starship is a symbol of God's office, and was a sign at the first Chrismas.
in the original verse, in genesis 49, it is judah being granted authority. the "sceptre" in that verse is judah's authority. not a UFO.
No it is God's office, over Judah. That included a UFO. The mobile throne as clearly described in the bible. His rule and Sceptre did continue till Jesus came, no broken squat.
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
" 1. something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail
1. standard (as rallying point), signal
2. standard (pole)
3. ensign, signal "
What was lifted up over Shiloh??? The star!! And boy can it sail. It certainly was a signal for the wise men! How much more clear could this stuff be?????
it's pretty clear when you're drawing false connections, and making stuff up, yes.
No, the Hebrew really means that. And the Christmas star really was a sign. And more.
the hebrew? what hebrew, where? in what verse?
As already posted...
" Thy rod and thy staff
shibtecha, thy sceptre, rod, ensign of a tribe, staff of office; for so shebet signifies in Scripture. And thy staff, umishantecha, thy prop or support. "
Psalms 23 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Look, and learn.
that's great. it's been in progress for the last 2,000 years, then. in the meantime, war still happens. including all those inquisition and crusades. so he hasn't exactly succeded yet. and if the reference was to "peace on earth" missing it by 2,000 years does not exactly make the case that it means jesus.
Right, He started by bringing peace to the hearts of men of good will, that come to Jesus. Sorry if you think undoing the evil caused by Adam's sin was a quick fix!! It cost His life, and a few thousand years of hard work, not to mention the thousands of years of prep work, before man was even ready for Jesus to come. But we are on the verge of the second coming, when He will end all wars.
see, this is just the problem. you have an ad-hoc explanation ready for everything. "parked somewhere out of sight" and "cloaking devices" and the identity of god -- you're just introducing more and more material that the authors of the bible didn't include. you're adding to the bible, saying they didn't know the truth. only you do. are you a false prophet, simple? the bible says to stone you.
False, Jesus hid who He really was from His disciples for a while, even after He rose, they thought He was the gardener! Angels are entertained unawares, as the bible puts it. Cloaked, or in disguise, is what this means. This is bible basics 101, and you think it is new material??
you must not get out much. stars disappear every morning. for a year. for ten years. for 100 years. for 1,000 years. for as long as the world has been rotating. surely you have noticed this simple fact of life that the sun rises every morning?
Well, many realize that the star did seem to disappear and reappear.
"for the Matthew text indicates that the star appeared, disappeared, and then reappeared and disappeared sometime later."
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
"The next fact to notice is that the Star of Bethlehem made a sudden appearance. Literally, the Wise Men saw it “rising in the east” (Matt. 2:2). Presumably they had never seen anything like it. Otherwise, why would they have followed it? The star’s sudden emergence is confirmed by King Herod, who “called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared” (Matt. 2:7).
The star disappeared just as suddenly as it appeared. This is why the Magi stopped in Jerusalem to ask for directions instead of going straight to Bethlehem. Then the star reappeared! This is the clear implication of verses 9 and 10: “After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.”"
http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues...
"In support of the comet theory is the implication in the Matthew text that the "star" disappeared for a while before reappearing over Bethlehem. Comets cannot be seen when they pass behind the sun."
The star of Bethlehem: the Christmas star
"These theories all fail to explain how "the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was" (Matthew 2:9). The position of a fixed star in the heavens varies at most one degree each day. No fixed star could have so moved before the Magi as to lead them to Bethlehem; neither fixed star nor comet could have disappeared, and reappeared, and stood still. Only a miraculous phenomenon could have been the Star of Bethlehem. it was like the miraculous pillar of fire which stood in the camp by night during Israel's Exodus (Exodus 13:21), or to the "brightness of God" which shone round about the shepherds (Luke 2:9), or to "the light from heaven" which shone around about the stricken Saul (Acts 9:3)."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Magi
Need more??? This is not a secret, you treat it like I made this stuff up.
the king was "thick as bricks" because he wasn't an astrologer. nor was anyone else in israel. which is why no one noticed a new and significant star. but people from persia would have, because there were alot of astrologically-inclined people there. which is why the king sent astrologers. why persia? as i keep explaining, only persia had reason to care.
An interesting, albeit, unsupportable opinion. There was no limitation saying only men wise about things like stars had to live in Iran. Even though they did have a Jewish girl there, that doesn't mean Iran sent them, or that they all came from Persia.
sure. maybe the ark was hidden safely somewhere. the problem is that it never came back from its hiding place, because it's not in the second temple that ezra built under cyrus the great. and we know that, because it's not in his book. any other story you create is ad-hoc mental masturbation. no one knows where it went, not even you, because it simply disappears from history at that point.
Not at all so. The omission of the fact that it did get into the holy of holies in one bible book is in no way a clincher. Conversely, if there was a holy of holies with no ark in it, symbolizing the very presence of God, that would be documented six ways from Saturday. 'Gee, we still did all the rigmarole ceremonies, without the heart and soul of the temple, because.....' Or at least some records of it being not there. All you have is it simply not being recorded in Ezra. Whoopee do. Why else would God rip open the veil, and take it back?? Shiloh was here, and He was heading for higher ground now.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the real presence of God in that ark to BE on earth!!! Jesus is the way to heaven now, and THE link with heaven. Shiloh is here. Any ark found is a replica, or some such, and not at all connected to heaven. If you don't believe me, when the "find" it, call me over, and I'll touch it, even knocky knock on it, and say, 'come out come out, wherever you are' on it, to prove I won't be killed by God, for so doing. It is in heaven as Rev 11:19 says.
for you to even claim that god took the ark when jesus rose from the dead, you would first half to show that the ark was even there. until that point, the default assumption is that it went missing 600 years earlier, around the time it was last documented to be anywhere.
False. as just explained, Jesus assumed that role of link with the Father, nothing on earth else could exist, as such.
and i love how "UFO!" is your go-to explanation.
When it is heaven you are going to, can you think of a better way???
a starship cannot be both far away and close at the same time. that was sort of the point. it was close by for all of jesus's life, but far enough away that no one could see it.
It was seen when it wanted to be. It was like a Christmas light with dimmers. It could shine bright in the sky. It could come down low, and shine a great light on shepherds, no doubt. It could appear or dissapear, yet still be around. What else could do all that, and more????
why don't you work on it. try thinking rationally, for a change. start reading the bible, especially in larger sections. pay attention to context, and meaning, and stop trying to draw arbitrary connections. stop looking for UFOs. stop reading preconceived notions into the book, and just read what's on the page. and quit the ad-hoc imaginative mental gymnastics. all you're doing is belittling the bible, and god.
Why? So, after all that, I could end up not believing it an any real way??? So I could think God does not fulfill prophesy, but it gets broken by man?? So I would think an ark, with the spirit of the Father is hiding in some dank tunnel cave, or someplace, and that Jesus dies in vain?? So I could believe the Christmas star is another fable, as are the flood, Babel, Eden, and etc??? Maybe it is you that need to take stock, and smell the roses.
Edited by simple, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of one URL, to restore page width to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 12:58 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 2:46 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 278 (430737)
10-26-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Vacate
10-26-2007 1:33 AM


Power in the Clouds
Because the spiritual level then, if my guess was right, would result in eternal bodies in a way that we are not now aware of, if we reached it. That is not precise, or physical only, as our universe now is. Therefore how could you know, IF it was merged, even, what that was like??? Just because it could have been both, doesn't mean the physical that was together with the spiritual, was physical only state, as you envision. If it was just a spiritual level, perhaps the physical bodies getting up there, and contacting the area directly would have resulted in a reaction of some kind?? Etc. Who knows?? There was a spiritual part of heaven close by, and that it would have somehow resulted in some change that was not good for man.
"...now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.." Gen 11:5
Maybe it was something less than eternal life, but whatever it was, contact with the spiritual was not then a good thing for man.
That is not my postition. Quit attempting to distort what I have clearly said about my position. I think you are trying to make the bible and God look silly, I have demonstrated why I think you have done this and now you are insisting that my summaries of your position somehow become my ideas and its my fault God appears the fool.
Stop denying. You claimed that the Christmas star was a star, and that the bible was plumb wrong. That, far as I can tell, is trying to make God inept, and silly.
This thread, and my purpose here is to analyse your position and see if it justified as a valid stance to take.
Then compare it to the bible for validity, and evidence, not either an unknown belief, or purple frogs.
I will add this to the list of additions you have made that are not supported by a person who reads what is written in the Bible.
Prove it! Many realize that Jesus likely did visit man in the old testament. Not some secret doctrine there. Better just add it to the list of things you offer no counter belief or bible support for. [/qs]
Had old laws, has current laws, will have old laws again. I hope that you all can take note of this.[/qs] Simple, the created state, a temporary state, then the created state returns when we are ready. Elementary.
I did, I looked back at what you have posted and accurately described the position you have taken. Do not accuse me of misrepresentation when its clear that you have said this repeatedly. Again in this post.
But they were not our laws, they were not our fundamental forces, it was not our light, etc. The created laws changed, yes, and we ARE the change, and soon, they will change back, this is a temporary state. Write that down, it's a good one.
... problem with this is that science cannot study and understand the incredible beauty that God created for us. (according to your story, not mine.)
True. All they can do is look at the beauty of the present state. A mere shadow of things to come. So??? It's time someone burst your little bubble there.
I have proved it several times now. This very post has you just saying "The created laws changed" and thats what I have issue with. ...
So? You can't deal in spiritual laws, live with it. All you can play with is the present ones. That is kindergarten stuff, compared to eternal state realities.
One with forsight and compassion would not have stuck a giant neon light above Babel saying "sinners loophole to Heaven located here"
And, what, He would not have allowed decay state atoms, because man would make nuclear bombs, and kill everyone too?? The heaven of the pre split era was close, but still beyond the reach of man. We lived on the cursed ground, if you remember. It was up till the time of Babel, about as hard for man to get to, as Stars in Orion are to fly to today.
If not for the flood, I don't think they even would have all the slime needed to build such a thing.
Hence my postition that your stance is stupid. Why (in your story) did God bother to give us a brain if we are not meant to use it?
Part of using it is not to pretend we can Buzz Lightyear present realities into infinity and beyond.
Why this need to hear my side of the story just to test the validity of yours?
We like to know what you are testing it with. Maybe your tester is a deficient.
Though I initially refused to specify what I felt the bible was saying about the “star of Bethlehem” as I felt it was off topic in a discussion about your story, I later presented a fictional story based on a Stephen King story as an attempt at humor in hopes of it alleviating your need for my alternate story even though it was off topic. It was clearly not a factual account of my faith, belief, or religion and I did specify that it was a baseless story concocted from a modern day fictional horror story.
Right, I think we got all that. What you present by your own admission, is baseless, and clearly not factual. OK. With a pretend statement of belief like that, how would you expect to be believed next time you offer a set of beliefs??
...my poor choice in the use of the word “believe” that I have since quoted, elaborated, and clarified. Its plainly obvious that I do not deny the use of the word, but it is also obvious that you have attempted to use this situation as some form of grounds to accuse me of lying.
OK, so, in addition to your admitted baseless horror tales, you admit to having poor choice. Fine. Most people like honesty.
Misrepresentation is your prime goal on this one issue and you have not one single time shown any effort to change this tactic.
You talk about humor, then get all wound up when your pretend froggie belief story is not presented in a gentle enough way for your liking?? Lighten up. What else am I supposed to hammer back in your side of the court, when that is the only ball you tossed???? Focus.
Further attempts to portray me as a liar due to my mistaken use of the word “belief” will not be addressed..
Ok, so now the froggie belief is not a lie again. Fine. I thought you had said it was baloney.
Right. Four Heavens, three Jesus, a UFO and a petty God with limited powers. Keep on bustin'!
Only as required. There are at least seven heavens, though, as the bible says.
The flying throne is bible described.
And it is very widespread belief that the son was in a few places in the old testament. Hardly news.
Da 7:13 - I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And I have no idea how you think God in a starship loses powers?? No.
Hec, sounds like it might be there again in that verse?? The clouds of heaven??? Sounds way up there. In this scene, Dad is giving some power to the son. Did you really think I made these things up???
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Vacate, posted 10-26-2007 1:33 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Vacate, posted 10-27-2007 8:18 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 278 (430739)
10-27-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by arachnophilia
10-26-2007 5:01 PM


Re: Clarifying Positions
what i take issue with is the butchering of the bible that goes with this. insisting, in many cases, that the bible just does not offer the whole story. and in several places, that the bible was written by evil coniving jewish conspirators and christ killers, who intentionally left out bits of his story (600 years before the fact), to cover their asses.
Though not addressed to me, it is a false slur about me.
The leaders of Israel of Jesus' day did not write the bible. I already made clear that your obsessing on Ezra not listing it as returned, or whatever is trivial. I do not think that they could have changed actual old scriptures. I would hope so, anyhow.
As I explained, the records that were likely affected were other things, that had to do with the life of Jesus.
i also take issue with the "decoder ring" version of the bible, that we need our extra-special holy spiritTM decoder ring to understand the bible, and if we just merely read the words on the page, as written, we're missing the big picture.
The reality that God reveals to His people, not to others is well established fact. Indisputable. Old, and new testaments.
Lu 10:21 - In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Dan 12:10 - Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Da 10:1 - In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
Mt 13:11 - He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
..and his results disagree with his own premise.
Oh, hec no. I have nothing that remotely disagrees with the bible, or the split.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by arachnophilia, posted 10-26-2007 5:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 2:53 AM simple has not replied

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


Message 264 of 278 (430747)
10-27-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by simple
10-26-2007 8:54 PM


simple's continued blasphemy
No, it is pretty clear who God is talking to. Another instance of God talking to satan through a king is in Isa 14.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
that's ezekiel 28, another commonly and easily refuted "devil" passage. just break it apart -- the imagery used is of the cherubim that god placed in eden after adam and eve were exiled. then of the breastplate that aaron wore when inside the tabernacle. then of the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim on top. it's talking about protection, and how the king of tyre was charged by god to protect his kingdom but has instead betrayed it. none of the imagery even remotely fits satan, who was never charged with protecting anything, and (by your account, i'm sure) had already fallen from grace long before the things described here. you are making the devil out to have more authority than he deserves. blasphemy.
sorry. but content and context still matter.
Depends if you read it as a spiritually minded man, or a natural man.
how about if i read it for what it says, instead of what a false prophet like yourself says it says. this "spiritually minded" stuff is just drivel, and you know it. it's an excuse to make up lies about the bible. more blasphemy.
Where does He say He broke the prophesy??
actually, the word you're really looking for is "covenant." and according to the bible, it was judah that broke it. god held up his end of the bargain, but mortal man failed. covenants are contracts, and because judah defaulted on their agreement, god was no longer held to his. at least, that's the premise of the the book of jeremiah. god continues to reassure the people in jeremiah 33 that there will always be a king of david on the throne, but the fact of the matter is, that zedekiah was the last davidic king to rule israel.
Nonsense. What is to not depart from the land, and people of Judah was something in particular. Not a stick. A sceptre. That was what would stay, the office of God, the rule and presence, etc of God, for a certain time period only, till Jesus came. Period.
that's nice, but you're still misreading the verse. especially because "sceptre" means "stick." look up the hebrew word used there, shebet. i know you've done it before. do it again. post it again, so everyone can continue to see just how your sources disagree with you.
quote:
Judah is a lion's whelp;
On prey, my son, you have grown.
He crouches, lies down like a lion,
Like the king of beasts -- who dares rouse him?
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet;
So that tribute shall come to him*
And the homage of peoples be his.
*Shiloh, understood as shai loh "tribute to him," following Midrash; cf Isa. 18.7. Meaning of Heb. uncertain; lit. "Until he comes to Shiloh."
i've grouped the lines in pairs, so that you can see the parallels more easily. notice the "lion" theme? perhaps you've heard the "lion of judah" expression before. but "sceptre" here is paralleled with "ruler's staff." it's a stick. it's about judah's ruling class status. this translation even groups "shi-loh" as parallel to "homage" and renders it as if someone forgot to put a space there. which, btw, is an entirely possible scribal error.
And, WHO was that Shepherd??! God. The rod was a symbol of that office, an ensign. Like the starship is a symbol of God's office, and was a sign at the first Chrismas.
the problem is that we are dealing with the same word. the "rod" in psalm 23 is the "sceptre" in genesis 49. they are the same thing, and mean the same thing.
No it is God's office, over Judah. That included a UFO. The mobile throne as clearly described in the bible. His rule and Sceptre did continue till Jesus came, no broken squat.
you are rather blatantly ignoring what the text actually says. judah ruled israel. this is a matter of biblical fact: david was from the tribe of judah. jesus was from the tribe of judah. each and every king of judah (the country) was from the tribe of judah -- and so was every king of israel (the country). all hebrew kings, in the bible, are from judah. this (genesis 49:10) is the place in the bible that jacob (israel) grants that authority. it's not about a UFO. it's about judah's right to kings. without it, you are effectively denying everything after this in the bible.
As already posted...
what you posted was:
quote:
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
"ensign" is an english word. the hebrew word you are looking for is or some derivitive of . you cannot say "the hebrew meaning for {an english word}." it makes no sense. you can say, "the word is {hebrew word} and that means {english word}."
" Thy rod and thy staff
shibtecha, thy sceptre, rod, ensign of a tribe, staff of office; for so shebet signifies in Scripture. And thy staff, umishantecha, thy prop or support. "
Psalms 23 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Look, and learn.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
Right, He started by bringing peace to the hearts of men of good will, that come to Jesus. Sorry if you think undoing the evil caused by Adam's sin was a quick fix!! It cost His life, and a few thousand years of hard work, not to mention the thousands of years of prep work, before man was even ready for Jesus to come. But we are on the verge of the second coming, when He will end all wars.
that's great. but that hasn't happened yet.
see, this is just the problem. you have an ad-hoc explanation ready for everything. "parked somewhere out of sight" and "cloaking devices" and the identity of god -- you're just introducing more and more material that the authors of the bible didn't include. you're adding to the bible, saying they didn't know the truth. only you do. are you a false prophet, simple? the bible says to stone you.
False, Jesus hid who He really was from His disciples for a while, even after He rose, they thought He was the gardener! Angels are entertained unawares, as the bible puts it. Cloaked, or in disguise, is what this means. This is bible basics 101, and you think it is new material??
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith. no, "cloaking devices" are forbidden for use by the united federation of planets, thanks to the treaty of algernon signed with the romulan empire.
you must not get out much. stars disappear every morning. for a year. for ten years. for 100 years. for 1,000 years. for as long as the world has been rotating. surely you have noticed this simple fact of life that the sun rises every morning?
Well, many realize that the star did seem to disappear and reappear.
again, stars disappear every morning.
The star disappeared just as suddenly as it appeared. This is why the Magi stopped in Jerusalem to ask for directions instead of going straight to Bethlehem.
they didn't stop in jerusalem for directions. they stopped in jerusalem to see the new king, jerusalem being the seat of power in israel. it was the pharisees who told them to go to bethlehem. which you have repeatedly said was not where they went.
"In support of the comet theory is the implication in the Matthew text that the "star" disappeared for a while before reappearing over Bethlehem. Comets cannot be seen when they pass behind the sun."
stars disappear every morning. do you really think they went and visitted herod the great in the middle of the night? like crazed mad-men kings would entertain guests in the middle of the night. they'd be lucky to get an audience in the daytime.
"These theories all fail to explain how "the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was" (Matthew 2:9). The position of a fixed star in the heavens varies at most one degree each day.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
one degree, my ass. they appear to rotate around the north star, one complete rotation (that's THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY degrees) every single day. closer to the equators, that's a complete trek across the night sky. every night. stars move.
Need more??? This is not a secret, you treat it like I made this stuff up.
no, i treat the UFO stuff like you made it up. because you did. but this sort of idiocy isn't new -- nor does it agree with your sci-fi story.
the king was "thick as bricks" because he wasn't an astrologer. nor was anyone else in israel. which is why no one noticed a new and significant star. but people from persia would have, because there were alot of astrologically-inclined people there. which is why the king sent astrologers. why persia? as i keep explaining, only persia had reason to care.
An interesting, albeit, unsupportable opinion. There was no limitation saying only men wise about things like stars had to live in Iran.
persia. what part of this are you not getting? magi come from persia. you're basically saying the equivalent of "levites don't have to come from israel."
Even though they did have a Jewish girl there, that doesn't mean Iran sent them, or that they all came from Persia.
jewish girl? you're talking about esther, queen of persia, born hadassah of israel. are you really that unfamiliar with the bible? and must you be so incredibly disrespectful of it?
Not at all so. The omission of the fact that it did get into the holy of holies in one bible book is in no way a clincher.
that's like saying that "just because elvis isn't listed in the book of numbers doesn't mean he wasn't around for the exodus!" yes, actually, it does. numbers is the book that records the people there. ezra is the book that records the reconstruction of the temple. if somebody isn't in numbers -- they weren't there. if something isn't in ezra -- it wasn't there. period.
Conversely, if there was a holy of holies with no ark in it, symbolizing the very presence of God, that would be documented six ways from Saturday.
no, actually, here it would just be good enough to have not mentioned it. judah had, 70 years earlier, been completely demolished by the chaldeans of babylon. we're talking holocaust and forced relocation. everything they knew was destroyed. putting the ark away somewhere safe was a possibility -- not mentioning it in kings could be overlooked as a safegaurd so the babylonians didn't find it. but by ezra, they had nothing to worry about. ezra was the glorious return, god remembering his promises and restoring the kingdom.
what was left of judah was so utterly destroyed that it had to be rebuilt from scratch -- the return of the ark would be seen as a major blessing. its absence would be seen as a loss of the exile.
'Gee, we still did all the rigmarole ceremonies, without the heart and soul of the temple, because.....' Or at least some records of it being not there. All you have is it simply not being recorded in Ezra. Whoopee do.
you seem to view the bible as very incomplete. author forgetting to mention things like the ark of the covenant, and giant UFOs in the sky. frankly, things probably got on just fine without the ark. the only people even allowed into the holy of holies were the cheif priest and very select few others. most of the temple functions took place outside this area.
Why else would God rip open the veil, and take it back?? Shiloh was here, and He was heading for higher ground now.
sometimes, i'm not even sure you understand your own posts.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the real presence of God in that ark to BE on earth!!!
and now you tell god what he cannot do? heresy.
Jesus is the way to heaven now, and THE link with heaven. Shiloh is here. Any ark found is a replica, or some such, and not at all connected to heaven.
i hate to break it to you then, but the original ark was man-made. it didn't magically come down from heaven. people built it. a very large section of the book of exodus is devoted to its design and construction. god's hand plays no role in the actual execution; he only specifies the design. would you care to tell me how, in your post-split world, "physical-only" man builds an object that is transcendant, merging the spirit and the physical? and if man can do that...
If you don't believe me, when the "find" it, call me over, and I'll touch it, even knocky knock on it, and say, 'come out come out, wherever you are' on it, to prove I won't be killed by God, for so doing.
quote:
You shall not tempt the LORD your God
Deuteronomy 6:16
It is in heaven as Rev 11:19 says.
revelation 11 is about the future.
or you to even claim that god took the ark when jesus rose from the dead, you would first half to show that the ark was even there. until that point, the default assumption is that it went missing 600 years earlier, around the time it was last documented to be anywhere.
False. as just explained, Jesus assumed that role of link with the Father, nothing on earth else could exist, as such.
ok, since your response doesn't actually make any semblance of sense whatsoever, i'll repeat myself: for you to claim that the ark disappeared when jesus rose from the dead, you would first have to show that it was present and accounted for at around that time. until you do that, the last record of its existance is around 600 years before that, so the default assumption must be that it was missing long before jesus even lived. now, if you have any real information to add here, and not simply idle speculation and making-shit-up storytelling, there are a whole boatload of ark-hunters who are chomping at the bit for even one more morsel of information on the ark's whereabouts.
and i love how "UFO!" is your go-to explanation.
When it is heaven you are going to, can you think of a better way???
yes. in fact, the bible describes quite a few. towers. ladders. chariots of fire. whirlwinds. jesus.
It was seen when it wanted to be. It was like a Christmas light with dimmers. It could shine bright in the sky. It could come down low, and shine a great light on shepherds, no doubt. It could appear or dissapear, yet still be around. What else could do all that, and more????
apparently, your imagination can.
why don't you work on it. try thinking rationally, for a change. start reading the bible, especially in larger sections. pay attention to context, and meaning, and stop trying to draw arbitrary connections. stop looking for UFOs. stop reading preconceived notions into the book, and just read what's on the page. and quit the ad-hoc imaginative mental gymnastics. all you're doing is belittling the bible, and god.
Why? So, after all that, I could end up not believing it an any real way???
that's the danger, isn't it? that if you actually bother to understand the bible, you might find you disagree with it. so instead, you simply ignore (belittle, deride) the bible, and make up your own stories instead. no danger there, you'll always agree with yourself. except, as this thread has shown a few times, when you don't. but that's the good thing, you rarely realize when you've contradicted yourself. it takes someone else to point it out to you.
So I would think an ark, with the spirit of the Father is hiding in some dank tunnel cave, or someplace, and that Jesus dies in vain??
i think we've hit on the fundamental problem here. for you, "putting god into a box" isn't just an expression. you seem to literally believe that god lives in a box! how peculiar! what a tiny god you must believe in. no wonder he needs a UFO to get around. and your jesus, all he does is steal that golden box. mreley saving the souls of all humanity would be such a worthless, "vain" gesture. still more heresy.
So I could believe the Christmas star is another fable,
you are the only person here that is creating a fable around it. the rest of us are quite comfortable with the idea that god manipulated the heavens in such a way that astrologers would get the message about a king in israel. after all, my god creates stars. moving them is not an issue. but it seems to be a big problem for your weak little god and his UFO. how blasphemous can you get?
Maybe it is you that need to take stock, and smell the roses.
your roses smell like the manure they are planted in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 8:54 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 5:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 265 of 278 (430748)
10-27-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by simple
10-27-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Clarifying Positions
Though not addressed to me, it is a false slur about me.
"false" would be the wrong word.
The leaders of Israel of Jesus' day did not write the bible. I already made clear that your obsessing on Ezra not listing it as returned, or whatever is trivial. I do not think that they could have changed actual old scriptures. I would hope so, anyhow.
yes, and your excuse was, as you repeated several times was that we cannot trust the records of "christ killers." it's not my fault that you did not understand the records i was talking about were in the bible and that you were very literally committing an anti-semitic racial slur against the very people who are responsible for the documents you claim to value.
your argument is utterly reprehensible, disgusting, and just plain ridiculous.
As I explained, the records that were likely affected were other things, that had to do with the life of Jesus.
and as i explained, i was talking about the bible. but it's become increasingly clear in this thread that you have no interest in the bible.
The reality that God reveals to His people, not to others is well established fact. Indisputable. Old, and new testaments.
see, that's the problem, simple. you are trying to play the upperhand, that you are "god's people" and the people who disagree with you are not. nevermind that is often other christians you are disagreeing with.
Oh, hec no. I have nothing that remotely disagrees with the bible, or the split.
this thread has clearly demonstrated that most of what you say is completely un-biblical, and sometimes anti-biblical. and sometimes, even anti-semitic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 12:13 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 278 (430753)
10-27-2007 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by arachnophilia
10-27-2007 2:46 AM


Grandpa to Grandson
that's ezekiel 28
I did have that reference wrong.
another commonly and easily refuted "devil" passage. just break it apart -- the imagery used is of the cherubim that god placed in eden after adam and eve were exiled. then of the breastplate that aaron wore when inside the tabernacle. then of the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim on top. it's talking about protection, and how the king of tyre was charged by god to protect his kingdom but has instead betrayed it. none of the imagery even remotely fits satan, who was never charged with protecting anything, and (by your account, i'm sure) had already fallen from grace long before the things described here. you are making the devil out to have more authority than he deserves. blasphemy.
sorry. but content and context still matter.
You chose to naturalize the meaning of what is being said. That is an option, but then you miss almost everything that is really going on.
how about if i read it for what it says, instead of what a false prophet like yourself says it says. this "spiritually minded" stuff is just drivel, and you know it. it's an excuse to make up lies about the bible. more blasphemy.
A false natural only minded surface take on what God is saying is virtually worthless. If you try to explain away the spiritual, you have a worthless book. Do you have a fireplace??? It might be cold this winter, at least use it for something of value. Be honest.
actually, the word you're really looking for is "covenant." and according to the bible, it was judah that broke it. god held up his end of the bargain, but mortal man failed. covenants are contracts, and because judah defaulted on their agreement, god was no longer held to his. at least, that's the premise of the the book of jeremiah. god continues to reassure the people in jeremiah 33 that there will always be a king of david on the throne, but the fact of the matter is, that zedekiah was the last davidic king to rule israel.
I looked at that chapter, and find refutation to your whole case.
"Jeremiah 33:15
In those days, and at that time .
In those very selfsame days before spoken of; in those days to come, and which were hastening on; in the fulness of time, agreed on between Jehovah and his Son; the appointed, fixed, determined time: will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David;
not Zerubbabel, but the Messiah; who is not only a branch of David's family, and therefore said to grow up unto him, being of his seed, his son, and offspring; but a Branch of righteousness, or a righteous Branch; perfectly righteous in himself, and the author of righteousness unto others; which cannot be said of Zerubbabel, or of any other branch springing from David but the Messiah; and of him the Targum interprets it, paraphrasing it thus,
``the Messiah of righteousness;''
and Kimchi's note is,
``this is the King Messiah;''
and so it is by other Jewish writers interpreted of him: and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land;"
!!!
that's nice, but you're still misreading the verse. especially because "sceptre" means "stick." look up the hebrew word used there, shebet. i know you've done it before. do it again. post it again, so everyone can continue to see just how your sources disagree with you.
That's nice. So the stick will not depart from Judah!!! What natural only nonsense. Thanks for that.
how about if i read it for what it says, instead of what a false prophet like yourself says it says. this "spiritually minded" stuff is just drivel, and you know it. it's an excuse to make up lies about the bible. more blasphemy.
Absolutely false. Nothing could be more false than to deny the spirit, without which, there is only death.
Ro 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Gotcha.
here is paralleled with "ruler's staff." it's a stick. it's about judah's ruling class status.
So the stick would not depart. How absurd. How ridiculously natural minded.
the problem is that we are dealing with the same word. the "rod" in psalm 23 is the "sceptre" in genesis 49. they are the same thing, and mean the same thing.
That is not a problem, it was my point. Thanks for that. The ensign was not a stick. The office and rule was not a stick. The throne of David passed to messiah was not a piece of wood.
you are rather blatantly ignoring what the text actually says. judah ruled israel. this is a matter of biblical fact: david was from the tribe of judah. jesus was from the tribe of judah. each and every king of judah (the country) was from the tribe of judah -- and so was every king of israel (the country). all hebrew kings, in the bible, are from judah. this (genesis 49:10) is the place in the bible that jacob (israel) grants that authority. it's not about a UFO. it's about judah's right to kings. without it, you are effectively denying everything after this in the bible.
Judah died. Remember??? The sceptre that was not taken from his tribe was God's office, not some stupid stick. Get a grip.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
It means the ruler, God, and whatever signs He gives. The sign of the Christmas star is an example, and that was not a stick. Really. Neither did dead old Judah have squat to do with it personally. Deal with it.
that's great. but that hasn't happened yet.
It is not yet completed of course.
again, stars disappear every morning.
They don't guide men to houses, or reappear on cue, as needed, after disappearing for what is obviously more than the normal day a star is not seen. That is ignorant.
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith.
Nothing remotely similar to that, by any whacked out stretch of the natural mind.
luke 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
John 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
If a star that is fixed moves before you, guiding you to the son of God, planets and stars have nothing, possibly to do with it.
persia. what part of this are you not getting? magi come from persia. you're basically saying the equivalent of "levites don't have to come from israel."
No. That is unknown, and assumed. If wise men traveled, you can't say they all had to start from the same country.
jewish girl? you're talking about esther, queen of persia, born hadassah of israel. are you really that unfamiliar with the bible? and must you be so incredibly disrespectful of it?
Nowhere does it hint that the queen sent wise men to Israel. That is silly.
that's like saying that "just because elvis isn't listed in the book of numbers doesn't mean he wasn't around for the exodus!" yes, actually, it does. numbers is the book that records the people there. ezra is the book that records the reconstruction of the temple. if somebody isn't in numbers -- they weren't there. if something isn't in ezra -- it wasn't there. period.
No. The granddad that was the high priest, as the temple was destroyed was put to death. His grandson was right there, and built the alter, etc. Would they really start the sacrifices without the ark??? Celebrate the feast of tabernacles, etc?? I see no reason to think so.
i think we've hit on the fundamental problem here. for you, "putting god into a box" isn't just an expression. you seem to literally believe that god lives in a box! how peculiar! what a tiny god you must believe in. no wonder he needs a UFO to get around. and your jesus, all he does is steal that golden box. mreley saving the souls of all humanity would be such a worthless, "vain" gesture. still more heresy.
Nope. The ark represented His spirit and presence. It was like a link with heaven.
you are the only person here that is creating a fable around it. the rest of us are quite comfortable with the idea that god manipulated the heavens in such a way that astrologers would get the message about a king in israel. after all, my god creates stars. moving them is not an issue. but it seems to be a big problem for your weak little god and his UFO. how blasphemous can you get?
So He danced a star around, right to the house of Jesus, and no one else recorded it in other countries??? Think about it. Jesus assuming a man's body did not make Him little. If the Father boogies around sometimes in a UFO, that doesn't make Him little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 2:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 6:35 PM simple has replied

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


Message 267 of 278 (430760)
10-27-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by simple
10-26-2007 11:37 PM


Re: Power in the Clouds
Because the spiritual level then, if my guess was right, would result in eternal bodies in a way that we are not now aware of, if we reached it.
So you are guessing that people could build a tower to this version of Heaven and attain eternal life, or some such quality. I don't really care if its "something less than eternal life", what is important is that man could interact with it somehow and thereby required God to move it away to prevent them from reaching Heaven and attaining some mysterious quality that your story no longer defines.
Stop denying. You claimed that the Christmas star was a star, and that the bible was plumb wrong. That, far as I can tell, is trying to make God inept, and silly.
So instead you assert that the writers of the bible could not get the story correct and "as far as you can tell" god is inept and silly. That supports my point.
My outlook however is that though there was a misunderstanding about the event that took place there is no need to blame God. Since the bible is not an absolute word for word chronicle of events that we should base our reality upon there is no need to deem God as "silly" - we just don't understand Him. (According to my story) I am not making denials, quote me making denials. You are not understanding my position and you are running out of excuses to do so.
Then compare it to the bible for validity, and evidence, not either an unknown belief, or purple frogs.
Thats what I am attempting to do each time I tell you that this thread is not about what I think happened its what you think happened. My unknown belief is not up for discussion and you have had plenty of opportunites to read this and understand it. Finally it appears you understand this and will avoid bringing it up in the future.
Prove it! Many realize that Jesus likely did visit man in the old testament. Not some secret doctrine there. Better just add it to the list of things you offer no counter belief or bible support for.
Its not my story, you prove it. "Many realize that Jesus likely did visit man in the old testament." - Its your story, prove it.
Simple, the created state, a temporary state, then the created state returns when we are ready. Elementary.
Right, so why do you keep denying your position and asserting it in the same breath? . Unknowable.
But they were not our laws, they were not our fundamental forces, it was not our light, etc. The created laws changed, yes, and we ARE the change, and soon, they will change back, this is a temporary state. Write that down, it's a good one.
Right, so why do you keep denying your position and asserting it in the same breath? Changed. Unknowable.
True. All they can do is look at the beauty of the present state. A mere shadow of things to come. So?
So I conclude that by looking at the present state and making conclusions based upon it leads people to incorrect ideas based on the fact that the laws have changed in the past, left no evidence of the change, and result in man being unable to learn anything due to the shifting of fundemental laws in our universe. Thanks to your God, in your story, we got brains but cannot use them.
So? You can't deal in spiritual laws, live with it. All you can play with is the present ones.
Why bother, they aren't working right anyhow. (according to your story)
And, what, He would not have allowed decay state atoms, because man would make nuclear bombs, and kill everyone too?
So he instead created a flood and killed everyone, later allowed nuclear bombs to be made and kill everyone again?
From what I know, nuclear bombs do not depend on decay for the reaction to take place. Feel free to show me where I am wrong however, I haven't read much on the subject. (don't just assert that your right, a relevant quote from a reputable site would be wonderful)
The heaven of the pre split era was close, but still beyond the reach of man. We lived on the cursed ground, if you remember. It was up till the time of Babel, about as hard for man to get to, as Stars in Orion are to fly to today.
No, see we cannot reach the stars of Orion today. Its impossible. The people of Babel however could reach the Heaven of the time, thats why God had to remove it remember? It was only 2-3000 feet up, not light years away.
If not for the flood, I don't think they even would have all the slime needed to build such a thing.
Great arguement! Add that to the list of "great things the flood brought to mankind". You really think slime and bricks is a good way to make a tower anyhow? Sounds kind of stupid for people who had superior intelligence.
Part of using it is not to pretend we can Buzz Lightyear present realities into infinity and beyond.
Good thing your around to explain it then. Is the Disney reference a requirement or just biblical sources?
quote:
Why this need to hear my side of the story just to test the validity of yours?
We like to know what you are testing it with. Maybe your tester is a deficient.
So its a must have situation that I present an alternate story. The God is omnipotent and infinitley powerful so he doesnt need to make four heavens, ufo's, repeating Jesus', and changing laws of physics just to get his creation to work right alternate viewpoint I have suggested could be the "tester" your looking for. Now who do we assign as judge for my "testers" legitimacy and when would you suggest I create a new topic to discuss it?
Right, I think we got all that. What you present by your own admission, is baseless, and clearly not factual. OK. With a pretend statement of belief like that, how would you expect to be believed next time you offer a set of beliefs?
I don't know, I guess my mistake was thinking that you could comprehend for one second that its not a stament of belief, faith, or religion. That was my other mistake I suppose, not spelling shit out to absurd detail so you can grasp an obvious work of fiction. Its beyond the point of spelling shit out in absurd detail now but you still don't get it. Its wierd, its like you are a complete retard, but you still manage to type.
OK, so, in addition to your admitted baseless horror tales, you admit to having poor choice. Fine. Most people like honesty.
From start to finish, yes I have been honest about the fact that this was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. Perhaps you could finally let that sink in.
You talk about humor, then get all wound up when your pretend froggie belief story is not presented in a gentle enough way for your liking?? Lighten up. What else am I supposed to hammer back in your side of the court, when that is the only ball you tossed?
If all you have to hammer back to my court is blatant continued misrepresentation, accuasations of lying, and childish behavior by continuing this line of debate - why not face up to the fact that its not getting you anywhere? You want me to lighten up? You are still trying to misrepresent my position, accusing me of lying. Yes you are beyond the point of pissing me off on this issue because you keep forcing me to explain something that anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension and honor would have dropped and appologized for way before I needed "lightening up".
Focus.
I am. I can see that you wish to continue this line of discussion as a method of keeping the on-topic discussion riddled with off-topic blather. I am well aware that, though sleazy, it does have the effect of giving you something to "hammer back to my court". I am sorry this is the only thing you have to attack me with, this can happen in debates; that your opponent is an unknown. Though I have clarified on many occations even after I said I would not address this issue, I find myself forced to defend against a tactic that makes you look like a dishonorable, manipulating, slow witted Christian. Though I, myself, choose not to speak for others, I will say that I personally find you to be a horrid example of what christanity is supposed to stand for.
Ok, so now the froggie belief is not a lie again. Fine. I thought you had said it was baloney.
Correct, its baloney or "a work of fiction". You accused me of lying that it was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. I have explained again and again to the point of absurdity that this is not the case. The fact that you still do not get it brings into question why I continue to debate with you. You tactics are low and your comprehension is limited.
Only as required. There are at least seven heavens, though, as the bible says.
The flying throne is bible described.
And it is very widespread belief that the son was in a few places in the old testament. Hardly news.
It was news to me before I started on this thread. Just for the record, again, I think this makes your God look like a Godlet. If you can finally find some focus to your side perhaps we can get further into this and provide some detail. For now however seem determined to keep any "hammer" you can and use it however you feel.
Hec, sounds like it might be there again in that verse?? The clouds of heaven?
Amazing! I can totally see now how you get UFO's from the bible, crystal clear now that you have shown how Clouds=UFO's. (Hammer #2!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 11:37 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 9:16 PM Vacate has replied

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


Message 268 of 278 (430812)
10-27-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by simple
10-27-2007 5:23 AM


You chose to naturalize the meaning of what is being said. That is an option, but then you miss almost everything that is really going on.
no, for something to be "really going on" it has to actually be there in the text, not just something that has been read into it that was not the intentions of the author. you go looking for the devil, and you will find him. everywhere. but it's just your paranoid self-delusion.
A false natural only minded surface take on what God is saying is virtually worthless. If you try to explain away the spiritual, you have a worthless book. Do you have a fireplace??? It might be cold this winter, at least use it for something of value. Be honest.
i find it odd that barring your crazy made-up stories, you would treat the bible as fire kindling. i assure you, the bible is not worthless if you actually read it for what it is. there is no need to make up stories. it's a good book. there is a lot of spiritual content, and nobody is explaining it away. we're arguing against the spiritual non-content. the stuff you have made up that, in effect, negates the spiritual content that is actually there. instead of reading bits about the holy blessing of a king, you see UFOs. instead of imagery of jewish priests, you see the devil. instead of condemnations of an earthly king who thought he was god, you see an angel that you treat like he might as well be.
I looked at that chapter, and find refutation to your whole case.
Jeremiah 33:15
jeremiah 33 does indeed promise the messiah, which is why i mentioned it. the problem is that we are still faced with reality in which the last king of judah, from the line of david, dies in 586 BC. the person you are saying would fulfill this comes almost 600 years later. but you're still missing the point -- god didn't break anything, judah did. god withdrew his blessing (like it or not) from judah. now, i know this is hard for you, but try to think about the order here. jeremiah promises the messiah because there was no king of judah.
so "judah will have kings until the messiah comes" makes no sense. there was no need for the messiah until judah did not have kings.
That's nice. So the stick will not depart from Judah!!! What natural only nonsense. Thanks for that.
*headdesk*
not a stick. it's a word that symbolizes judah's authority to rule. judah's authority will not depart. it's not a UFO!
Absolutely false. Nothing could be more false than to deny the spirit, without which, there is only death.
Ro 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Gotcha.
try deuteronomy 13. because, you see, romans chapter 8 is not talking about what you are saying. you are using it (and other quotemined "prooftexts") as an excuse to claim that those who do not agree with your ludicrous mishandling of the bible are outsiders, fooled by god. you turn god into a liar, a devil. the bible says to stone people like you.
That is not a problem, it was my point. Thanks for that. The ensign was not a stick. The office and rule was not a stick. The throne of David passed to messiah was not a piece of wood.
no. it was royalty. how do you really not get this? the word means "a staff signifying leadership." even you agree to that -- it's just that this staff is NOT a UFO! it's not really anything, not even a physical object. the verse only means judah's leadership.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
It means the ruler, God, and whatever signs He gives. The sign of the Christmas star is an example, and that was not a stick. Really. Neither did dead old Judah have squat to do with it personally. Deal with it.
i can't help you. you don't even want to read the bible honestly. you just want to distort it into nonsense and lies.
again, stars disappear every morning.
They don't guide men to houses, or reappear on cue, as needed, after disappearing for what is obviously more than the normal day a star is not seen. That is ignorant.
stars do reappear -- every evening. do you really not understand this? do i have to spell this out for you? the magi observed the night sky, which told then a new king was born to israel. they went to visit the king in jerusalem, DURING THE DAY, but only found herod, who was very confused about the matter not being an astrologer. the pharisees told them to go to bethlehem. during their journey, the star re-appeared in the evening, and it's normal path through the night sky led them to the house.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
If a star that is fixed moves before you, guiding you to the son of God, planets and stars have nothing, possibly to do with it.
did you not understand the fancy picture i posted? that's what happens when you point a camera at the night sky, and leave the shutter open all night. the stars appear to move, in great circular tracks across the sky. planets make even loopier paths. your point is retarded: stars appear to move.
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith.
Nothing remotely similar to that, by any whacked out stretch of the natural mind.
if you saw a dead guy walking around, you wouldn't think it was him at first either. no cloaking devices required.
No. That is unknown, and assumed. If wise men traveled, you can't say they all had to start from the same country.
ok, let's try this again. what country do levites come from?
jewish girl? you're talking about esther, queen of persia, born hadassah of israel. are you really that unfamiliar with the bible? and must you be so incredibly disrespectful of it?
Nowhere does it hint that the queen sent wise men to Israel. That is silly.
you really have reading comprehension difficulty, don't you? that was not what i said. i said that persia was the only country that had any reason to even care about israel, because they had (past tense) a jewish queen. esther had been dead for about 400 years at this point.
that's like saying that "just because elvis isn't listed in the book of numbers doesn't mean he wasn't around for the exodus!" yes, actually, it does. numbers is the book that records the people there. ezra is the book that records the reconstruction of the temple. if somebody isn't in numbers -- they weren't there. if something isn't in ezra -- it wasn't there. period.
No. The granddad that was the high priest, as the temple was destroyed was put to death. His grandson was right there, and built the alter, etc. Would they really start the sacrifices without the ark??? Celebrate the feast of tabernacles, etc?? I see no reason to think so.
yes, sacrifices got on just fine without the ark. don't believe me? consult your own ludicrous story. the second temple stood until about 70 AD, when the romans demolished it. sacrifices went for another 40 years after jesus was executed. if they can't do sacrifices without the ark, it must have still been there. take your pick, at least one of your points has to be wrong.
as for the altar, no, you can't do sacrifices with an altar. the second temple had a rather large one, as documented by history. and that is not as important an object as the ark of the covenant.
think we've hit on the fundamental problem here. for you, "putting god into a box" isn't just an expression. you seem to literally believe that god lives in a box! how peculiar! what a tiny god you must believe in. no wonder he needs a UFO to get around. and your jesus, all he does is steal that golden box. mreley saving the souls of all humanity would be such a worthless, "vain" gesture. still more heresy.
Nope. The ark represented His spirit and presence. It was like a link with heaven.
your god lives in a box. literally.
So He danced a star around, right to the house of Jesus, and no one else recorded it in other countries???
curiously, only the bible records any of this.
Think about it. Jesus assuming a man's body did not make Him little. If the Father boogies around sometimes in a UFO, that doesn't make Him little.
it sure makes him smaller than a god who moves stars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 5:23 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 9:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 278 (430837)
10-27-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Vacate
10-27-2007 8:18 AM


Slimestone
So you are guessing that people could build a tower to this version of Heaven and attain eternal life, or some such quality. I don't really care if its "something less than eternal life", what is important is that man could interact with it somehow and thereby required God to move it away to prevent them from reaching Heaven and attaining some mysterious quality that your story no longer defines.
I define things by a guess, when it is left unknown, and educated guess. Based on things of a spiritual nature in the rest of the bible. It is known that the spiritual level was nearby, however.
So instead you assert that the writers of the bible could not get the story correct and "as far as you can tell" god is inept and silly. That supports my point.
No, you can't. A star in the ancient world meant almost any little light in the night sky. Period.
My outlook however is that though there was a misunderstanding about the event that took place there is no need to blame God. Since the bible is not an absolute word for word chronicle of events that we should base our reality upon there is no need to deem God as "silly" - we just don't understand Him. (According to my story)
Your story therefore has no reality to God, or the bible. The idea of the bible is a book to understand Him. Take that away, and you got nothing.
I am not making denials, quote me making denials. You are not understanding my position and you are running out of excuses to do so.
Your position comes in little dribbles, so there isn't enough there to make a picture to understand or not. But you deny that the bible is correct in any meaningful way. Just look at this post, for the quotes from you there.
My unknown belief is not up for discussion
Your unknown belief is up for discussion, in that you are hiding it. That fact alone is suspicious.
Its not my story, you prove it. "Many realize that Jesus likely did visit man in the old testament." - Its your story, prove it.
There are oodles and oodles of sites that outline this Christian belief. All I have to do is show it is an accepted position, not that it has to be the only position.
"Careful study of the OT also reveals that Jesus Christ made several bodily appearances, or Christophanies, long before he entered Mary’s womb. One such appearance was in Gen. 18 when Jesus, along with two of his angels, visited Abraham. In v. 3 of that chapter Abraham greets one of the men as “My Lord” (”Adonai” in Hebrew) which is a phrase in scripture used only to refer to God (see Ps. 110:1). Starting in Gen. 18:13, this man is called “the LORD.” Whenever the word LORD appears in scripture with all caps, this identifies God’s name Jehovah or Yahweh. As this chapter ends, two of the men begin a journey to Sodom while Jesus remains behind to tell Abraham that Sodom will be destroyed. Upon learning of Sodom’s upcoming destruction, Abraham intercedes on their behalf to Jesus. In the next chapter the two angels who were with Jesus arrive at Sodom to rescue Lot and his family.
Jesus also made an appearance to Jacob in Gen. 32:24-30 where he wrestled with Jacob all night. Several theologians have said that Jacob was merely having a psychological battle, not a physical one, because of his feeling guilty for taking Esau’s birthright. However, I have never heard of someone having a psychological battle where their hip gets knocked out of joint as Jacob’s did-have you? Since Jacob held his own against Jesus in the wrestling match, he was granted a blessing. His name was changed to Israel, which is proof that this man had to be Jesus. Israel means “he who prevails with God” or “he will rule as God (rules).” Jacob had literally prevailed with God by wrestling with him in the person of Jesus. This was a reflection of Jacob’s spiritual growth in that he could persevere and overcome by faith without cheating as he had done in the past. Jacob realized who he wrestled with in Gen. 32:30 by naming the place Peniel, meaning “the face of God,” knowing he had seen him face to face and lived.
Jesus appeared to Joshua also in Josh. 5:13-15. Joshua was near Jericho when he saw a man with a sword drawn. Immediately Joshua wanted to know if he was friend or foe and he was told by the man that he was captain of the Lord’s host. Upon hearing this, Joshua fell on his face and worshipped him. This man did not stop Joshua from worshipping him as any other servant of the Lord would do (see Acts 10:26; 14:15; Rev. 19:10; 22:9 where servants of God stopped other men from worshipping them). Joshua asked Jesus what his message was and Jesus responded by telling Joshua to take off his shoes because he was on holy ground, which is the same thing he told Moses in Exodus when he appeared to him in a burning bush."
Jesus Christ’s appearances in the Old Testament–pt. 1 – Sun & Shield
The belief Jesus was alive and well, and visiting us in the old testament is basic bread and butter Christian fare.
Right, so why do you keep denying your position and asserting it in the same breath? . Unknowable.
That this universe we know will pass away is well known. That this is a temporary world is almost universally known to believers. What I say is unknown is the precise details of the spiritual kingdom, to PO men.
Why bother, they aren't working right anyhow. (according to your story)
They work fine where they apply, not in the PO fishbowl, we were given fishbowl physics laws that rule here.
Good thing your around to explain it then. Is the Disney reference a requirement or just biblical sources?
It is a popular culture example of a claim that someone could go to infinity and beyond, when they can't get out of the box themselves!
So I conclude that by looking at the present state and making conclusions based upon it leads people to incorrect ideas based on the fact that the laws have changed in the past, left no evidence of the change, and result in man being unable to learn anything due to the shifting of fundamental laws in our universe. Thanks to your God, in your story, we got brains but cannot use them.
You can use them in the fishbowl. Be thankful. Just don't think too highly of your abilities, and thoughts. God's thoughts are way way higher.
From what I know, nuclear bombs do not depend on decay for the reaction to take place. Feel free to show me where I am wrong however, I haven't read much on the subject. (don't just assert that your right, a relevant quote from a reputable site would be wonderful)
"Nuclear fission differs from other forms of radioactive decay in that it can be harnessed and controlled via a chain reaction: free neutrons released by each fission event can trigger yet more events, which in turn release more neutrons and cause more fissions. Chemical isotopes that can sustain a fission chain reaction are called nuclear fuels, and are said to be fissile. The most common nuclear fuels are 235U (the isotope of uranium with an atomic mass of 235 and of use in nuclear reactors, 238) and 239Pu (the isotope of plutonium with an atomic mass of 239). These fuels break apart into a range of chemical elements with atomic masses near 100 (fission products). Most nuclear fuels undergo spontaneous fission only very slowly,"
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia
So, it seems it is more or less speeding up the PO processes of decay. In a universe where there is no decay process as we know, that isn't something that could be sped up, is it??
But the point you missed was that, just because there is something available, no need to use it in a way that is bad.
The God is omnipotent and infinitley powerful so he doesnt need to make four heavens, ufo's, repeating Jesus', and changing laws of physics just to get his creation to work right alternate viewpoint I have suggested could be the "tester" your looking for. Now who do we assign as judge for my "testers" legitimacy and when would you suggest I create a new topic to discuss it?
Are you saying, now, then, that this is your belief???
He made many levels of hell, and heaven. Nothing to do with not being powerful, He is accommodating. Neither is Jesus being alive and well and active make Him more than one Jesus. Neither is there a thing wrong with Ezekiel's mobile throne sighting. Test that, with your little shiny new tester.
No, see we cannot reach the stars of Orion today. Its impossible. The people of Babel however could reach the Heaven of the time, thats why God had to remove it remember? It was only 2-3000 feet up, not light years away.
Well, no, they could not have, because God just wasn't about to dream of letting that happen any more than we can play guitar on the bands of Orion.
Great arguement! Add that to the list of "great things the flood brought to mankind". You really think slime and bricks is a good way to make a tower anyhow? Sounds kind of stupid for people who had superior intelligence.
That was pre split, remember!!??? Focus. What does how we make bricks now with got to do remotely with that!!??? They had plenty of slimestone.
From start to finish, yes I have been honest about the fact that this was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. Perhaps you could finally let that sink in.
Oh, I got how you admitted yo had poor choice, and also made that stated belief up. Relax.
That was my other mistake I suppose, not spelling shit out to absurd detail so you can grasp an obvious work of fiction.
Not at all, you can't pull one over on me. I was onto you soon as you made the silly claims. I knew you were not telling the truth, if it makes you feel any better.
I will say that I personally find you to be a horrid example of what christanity is supposed to stand for.
No problem. From the quality of your arguments, or lack therof, that is a compliment. Now, if you were brave enough to put your beliefs on the table, as I have, I might pay them a little return compliment there. But you can stay in your safe place, that's OK. Readers will understand what you are doing. Better to stay mellow yellow, I suppose.
Correct, its baloney or "a work of fiction". You accused me of lying that it was not a statement of belief, faith, or religion. I have explained again and again to the point of absurdity that this is not the case. The fact that you still do not get it brings into question why I continue to debate with you. You tactics are low and your comprehension is limited.
OK, so I think we all are starting to get it here. You insist obsessively in hiding your 'true' beliefs. You presented some beliefs, but these were false, by your own admission. You haven't been able to grasp that you fooled no one, but are so convinced you had, you think others have a 'comprehension problem'. OK.
Now, on the topic, I think your 'stated' position' is that you insist the Christmas star was a distant sun, and that the bible, therefore, is hopelessly wrong. You offer no support for why, but have made the claim. Wow. Whoopee do.
It was news to me before I started on this thread. Just for the record, again, I think this makes your God look like a Godlet.
OK, so you had no idea before this thread Jesus was alive and well before He came down as a human baby. OK. I guess this is a clue that you are not familiar with Christian basics. We are narrowing your secret beliefs down a little.
Amazing! I can totally see now how you get UFO's from the bible, crystal clear now that you have shown how Clouds=UFO's.
Well, what I took as a clue there, was that God in that scene, and His son were up in the clouds.
" The Ancient of days
God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form."
Daniel 7 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
This is God, up in the clouds, no??? In a body. The son is also there. Now, was the Father's wheels there???? (UFO of Ezekiel) Let's see.
Oh my goodness, to clinch it, there is the THRONE, plain as day!!!
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Surprise surprise. You really thought I made this stuff up????????
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Vacate, posted 10-27-2007 8:18 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Vacate, posted 10-27-2007 11:30 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 278 (430845)
10-27-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by arachnophilia
10-27-2007 6:35 PM


no, for something to be "really going on" it has to actually be there in the text, not just something that has been read into it that was not the intentions of the author. you go looking for the devil, and you will find him. everywhere. but it's just your paranoid self-delusion.
The author was God, and His spirit, so to perceive the intentions the spirit is required. Get over it.
nobody is explaining it away. we're arguing against the spiritual non-content.
The wheels are real. The throne is real. The guiding the wise men was real. The star prophesy was real. The fact that you want to neuter the spiritual from the bible only neuters you potential to actually understand it. That is plainly brought out in the bible, I even posted some verses on it.
jeremiah 33 does indeed promise the messiah, which is why i mentioned it. the problem is that we are still faced with reality in which the last king of judah, from the line of david, dies in 586 BC. the person you are saying would fulfill this comes almost 600 years later. but you're still missing the point -- god didn't break anything, judah did. god withdrew his blessing (like it or not) from judah. now, i know this is hard for you, but try to think about the order here. jeremiah promises the messiah because there was no king of judah.
The messiah was promised from the beginning, long before there were kings in Israel, or an Israel. You interpret the sceptre as meaning kings, that is your problem, and leaves you with broken prophesy, a useless bible, and a God missing in action.
so "judah will have kings until the messiah comes" makes no sense. there was no need for the messiah until judah did not have kings.
Complete nonsense and doctrine. Man needed a savior since the fall. Israel was one step on the way there, and it's silly little pip squeak kings, most of whom seemed to be desperately wicked, and idolaters anyhow, had diddley much to do with it. If you miss God's office, you miss the whole thing.
not a stick. it's a word that symbolizes judah's authority to rule. judah's authority will not depart. it's not a UFO!
No, it is a word that symbolizes God's authority, and He is the only one in the bible that ever had a sceptre. His sceptre did remain till after Shiloh came. The Father stuck around till Jesus took over the job.
stars do reappear -- every evening. do you really not understand this? do i have to spell this out for you? the magi observed the night sky, which told then a new king was born to israel. they went to visit the king in jerusalem, DURING THE DAY, but only found herod, who was very confused about the matter not being an astrologer. the pharisees told them to go to bethlehem. during their journey, the star re-appeared in the evening, and it's normal path through the night sky led them to the house.
You think it only took them a day to get to the palace now?? Or are you suggesting they were ecstatic every night for a year and some months, or whatever it took to get there???
Can you demonstrate the normal path of a star leading a pizza delivery boy to your house?? Call up, and instead of an address just say 'follow that star'. Yeah right. Get a grip.
did you not understand the fancy picture i posted? that's what happens when you point a camera at the night sky, and leave the shutter open all night. the stars appear to move, in great circular tracks across the sky. planets make even loopier paths. your point is retarded: stars appear to move.
Of course they slow motion appear to move across the sky. Now, order that pizza, and show us the demo. Remember, I am even allowing you to tell then the city you are in. Work on that.
Message 268 of 269 10-27-2007 03:35 PM
You chose to naturalize the meaning of what is being said. That is an option, but then you miss almost everything that is really going on.
no, for something to be "really going on" it has to actually be there in the text, not just something that has been read into it that was not the intentions of the author. you go looking for the devil, and you will find him. everywhere. but it's just your paranoid self-delusion.
A false natural only minded surface take on what God is saying is virtually worthless. If you try to explain away the spiritual, you have a worthless book. Do you have a fireplace??? It might be cold this winter, at least use it for something of value. Be honest.
i find it odd that barring your crazy made-up stories, you would treat the bible as fire kindling. i assure you, the bible is not worthless if you actually read it for what it is. there is no need to make up stories. it's a good book. there is a lot of spiritual content, and nobody is explaining it away. we're arguing against the spiritual non-content. the stuff you have made up that, in effect, negates the spiritual content that is actually there. instead of reading bits about the holy blessing of a king, you see UFOs. instead of imagery of jewish priests, you see the devil. instead of condemnations of an earthly king who thought he was god, you see an angel that you treat like he might as well be.
I looked at that chapter, and find refutation to your whole case.
Jeremiah 33:15
jeremiah 33 does indeed promise the messiah, which is why i mentioned it. the problem is that we are still faced with reality in which the last king of judah, from the line of david, dies in 586 BC. the person you are saying would fulfill this comes almost 600 years later. but you're still missing the point -- god didn't break anything, judah did. god withdrew his blessing (like it or not) from judah. now, i know this is hard for you, but try to think about the order here. jeremiah promises the messiah because there was no king of judah.
so "judah will have kings until the messiah comes" makes no sense. there was no need for the messiah until judah did not have kings.
That's nice. So the stick will not depart from Judah!!! What natural only nonsense. Thanks for that.
*headdesk*
not a stick. it's a word that symbolizes judah's authority to rule. judah's authority will not depart. it's not a UFO!
Absolutely false. Nothing could be more false than to deny the spirit, without which, there is only death.
Ro 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Gotcha.
try deuteronomy 13. because, you see, romans chapter 8 is not talking about what you are saying. you are using it (and other quotemined "prooftexts") as an excuse to claim that those who do not agree with your ludicrous mishandling of the bible are outsiders, fooled by god. you turn god into a liar, a devil. the bible says to stone people like you.
That is not a problem, it was my point. Thanks for that. The ensign was not a stick. The office and rule was not a stick. The throne of David passed to messiah was not a piece of wood.
no. it was royalty. how do you really not get this? the word means "a staff signifying leadership." even you agree to that -- it's just that this staff is NOT a UFO! it's not really anything, not even a physical object. the verse only means judah's leadership.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
It means the ruler, God, and whatever signs He gives. The sign of the Christmas star is an example, and that was not a stick. Really. Neither did dead old Judah have squat to do with it personally. Deal with it.
i can't help you. you don't even want to read the bible honestly. you just want to distort it into nonsense and lies.
again, stars disappear every morning.
They don't guide men to houses, or reappear on cue, as needed, after disappearing for what is obviously more than the normal day a star is not seen. That is ignorant.
stars do reappear -- every evening. do you really not understand this? do i have to spell this out for you? the magi observed the night sky, which told then a new king was born to israel. they went to visit the king in jerusalem, DURING THE DAY, but only found herod, who was very confused about the matter not being an astrologer. the pharisees told them to go to bethlehem. during their journey, the star re-appeared in the evening, and it's normal path through the night sky led them to the house.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
If a star that is fixed moves before you, guiding you to the son of God, planets and stars have nothing, possibly to do with it.
did you not understand the fancy picture i posted? that's what happens when you point a camera at the night sky, and leave the shutter open all night. the stars appear to move, in great circular tracks across the sky. planets make even loopier paths. your point is retarded: stars appear to move.
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith.
Nothing remotely similar to that, by any whacked out stretch of the natural mind.
if you saw a dead guy walking around, you wouldn't think it was him at first either. no cloaking devices required.
If it was my best friend, and, in Mary's case, almost like a husband, I think people would recognize them. Yes.
persia was the only country that had any reason to even care about israel, because they had (past tense) a jewish queen. esther had been dead for about 400 years at this point.
That is nonsense. Many countries knew of Israel. But it doesn't say countries sent them. Why make stuff up, and read things into it that aren't there???? Then you accuse others of a comprehension problem, because they never tuned in to your little fantasy trip??
ok, let's try this again. what country do levites come from?
Easy, the US, Britain, Jordan, Argentina, Canada, and etc. Why?? Just like Iranians! They are all over. Traveling is a wonderful thing.
try deuteronomy 13. because, you see, romans chapter 8 is not talking about what you are saying. you are using it (and other quotemined "prooftexts") as an excuse to claim that those who do not agree with your ludicrous mishandling of the bible are outsiders, fooled by god. you turn god into a liar, a devil. the bible says to stone people like you.
Readers, just listen to this guy weird out. Without the spiritual, as the bible says, you just can't get it. Got it??
yes, sacrifices got on just fine without the ark. don't believe me? consult your own ludicrous story. the second temple stood until about 70 AD, when the romans demolished it. sacrifices went for another 40 years after jesus was executed. if they can't do sacrifices without the ark, it must have still been there. take your pick, at least one of your points has to be wrong.
Sure one could. Just sew up the veil, and pretend it is business as usual! The show must go on. After all, not like anyone was going in there to check!!!! That is why, in my opinion, God sent the Romans to stop that show, and will send the Antichrist to stop the sacrifices when they shortly start up again!!!!
It is simply not going to be allowed.
curiously, only the bible records any of this.
My ppoint, exactly, if it was a star in the sense of a distant sun, others would have seen it. Thanks for that.
it sure makes him smaller than a god who moves stars.
Not if you think about it. Not only is He all in all, and the Great Spirit that is in everything, and set the stars in the heavens, He also does it from a starship, at least sometimes. And He is soon coming right here forever to land and live, and base His trips from!! Evermore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 6:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by arachnophilia, posted 10-27-2007 10:46 PM simple 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