Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #13104

Subject: "Biblical Questions" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Thu Jun-21-01 07:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Biblical Questions"


  

          

HTP

This thread is meant as a "Bible study" of sorts. Because persons in the okaychristian community (especially osoclasi) have offered to answer any questions we may have about the "good book," I have decided to personally take them up on that offer. Anyone who has questions please feel free to ask. Since this is alot to ask of one or a few persons, I ask all of those with questions to base them specifically on Biblical verses, so the conversation will not be completely sujective to the opinion of one Christian. Also please provide the verse number, so the question can be answered expenditiously. Here is a link for an online Bible verse search: http://www.unboundbible.org/

Finally, I hope this can be an enlightened discussion with 100% less stuffiness and Christian-bashing. There is a time and place for everything and right now it isn't the time or PLACE for Christian-bashing. If you want to do that then go here:http://www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3054&forum=DCForumID1&omm=0

Thanks to everyone for their cooperation in advance and special gratitude goes to the okayapologetics in the okaychristian community who give up their precious time to answer our questions.

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
Incest: Good or Bad?
Jun 21st 2001
1
Other people created
Jun 21st 2001
3
RE: Incest: Good or Bad?
Jun 22nd 2001
10
RE: check you inbox
Jun 24th 2001
95
RE: Incest: Good or Bad?
Jun 23rd 2001
57
Christ: Hanged or Crucified?
Jun 21st 2001
2
Judas
DonQuijote
Jun 21st 2001
5
answer
Jun 22nd 2001
13
RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?
Jun 22nd 2001
14
Also . . .
Jun 22nd 2001
25
If that is the case
Jun 24th 2001
85
RE: If that is the case
Jun 27th 2001
146
It's "Response" not "Responce"
Jun 28th 2001
177
      whatever
Jun 29th 2001
182
RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?
835
Jun 22nd 2001
46
RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?
835
Jun 22nd 2001
47
What is:
Jun 25th 2001
117
DUMBASS QUESTION
CROCODILE HUNTER
Jun 25th 2001
119
      If you know,
Jun 25th 2001
124
      Maybe
Jun 26th 2001
135
      Thank U for this, though.
Jun 28th 2001
175
RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?
Roses
Jul 02nd 2001
208
RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified? Surely wasn't crucified!!!
LovMvmnt2001
Jul 02nd 2001
220
      Good observation
Jul 03rd 2001
221
      cruxified
Jul 04th 2001
228
           what medical evidence?
utamaroho
Jul 04th 2001
230
                RE: did you read it.............
Jul 04th 2001
236
                     this modern medical evidence
utamaroho
Jul 04th 2001
238
                          they don't exist
Jul 04th 2001
242
                          RE: this modern medical evidence
Jul 06th 2001
254
Romans 13:1
Jun 21st 2001
4
RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 22nd 2001
16
RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 22nd 2001
24
RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 22nd 2001
26
RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 22nd 2001
29
RE: Romans 13:1
835
Jun 22nd 2001
50
RE: Romans 13:1
835
Jun 22nd 2001
49
RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 23rd 2001
72
      RE: Romans 13:1
Jun 28th 2001
173
RE: Romans 13:1
835
Jun 22nd 2001
48
Exodus 10:16-20
DonQuijote
Jun 21st 2001
6
RE: Exodus 10:16-20
Jun 22nd 2001
17
How Can You say this?
Jun 27th 2001
151
      easily
Jun 28th 2001
172
RE: Exodus 10:16-20
Jun 23rd 2001
58
RE: I Have a Question
Jun 22nd 2001
7
Incest was acceptable and necessary
kastfan
Jun 22nd 2001
8
dunno about that
Jun 22nd 2001
12
this is not very logical
Jun 22nd 2001
15
RE: this is not very logical
Jun 23rd 2001
63
      RE: check your inbox
Jun 24th 2001
97
      come on
Jun 25th 2001
100
           RE: come on
kastfan
Jun 25th 2001
113
RE: Check your inbox
Jun 24th 2001
96
RE: I Have a Question
kastfan
Jun 22nd 2001
9
One question on that...
Jun 27th 2001
152
RE: I Have a Question
Jun 22nd 2001
19
The death process . . .
Jun 22nd 2001
27
      clarification
Jun 22nd 2001
35
           RE: clarification
Jun 22nd 2001
53
                that's good
Jun 23rd 2001
59
if
Jun 22nd 2001
11
RE: if
Jun 22nd 2001
28
      yes sir/ma'am
Jun 22nd 2001
30
           Okay
Jun 22nd 2001
33
           My bad . . .
Jun 22nd 2001
34
           don't take offense
Jun 22nd 2001
36
                and
Jun 22nd 2001
37
           RE: yes sir/ma'am
Jun 22nd 2001
38
                as such
Jun 22nd 2001
40
                     read the initial post
Jun 24th 2001
87
heres a question
Jun 22nd 2001
18
sorry Solarus
Jun 22nd 2001
20
RE: heres a question
Jun 22nd 2001
21
      RE: heres a question
Jun 22nd 2001
22
      RE: heres a question
Jun 22nd 2001
31
      RE: heres a question
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 22nd 2001
52
      yes, do you
Jun 23rd 2001
60
           RE: yes, do you
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 23rd 2001
75
                Depends
Jun 24th 2001
77
                     RE: Depends
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 24th 2001
89
                          RE: Depends
Jun 25th 2001
108
                               RE: Depends
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 25th 2001
120
                                    RE: Depends
Jun 26th 2001
134
                                         I'll return to that later....
Jun 27th 2001
153
      RE: heres a question
Jun 25th 2001
103
           RE: heres a question
Jun 25th 2001
109
      RE: heres a question
Jun 26th 2001
144
      Cain and his wife
kastfan
Jun 22nd 2001
23
           The question . . .
Jun 22nd 2001
32
                r u an arab christian?
Jun 22nd 2001
39
                     RE: r u an arab christian?
Jun 22nd 2001
54
limiting Himself
JESSEWA
Jun 22nd 2001
41
RE: limiting Himself
Jun 22nd 2001
42
and
JESSEWA
Jun 22nd 2001
43
      RE: and
Jun 22nd 2001
55
           RE: Check your Inbox
Jun 24th 2001
98
RE: limiting Himself
Jun 22nd 2001
44
RE: limiting Himself
Jun 23rd 2001
62
My Question:
Jun 22nd 2001
45
My personal belief . . .
Jun 22nd 2001
56
RE: My Question:
Jun 23rd 2001
70
      RE: My Question:
Jun 23rd 2001
73
           Biased?
Jun 24th 2001
76
                RE: Biased?
Jun 24th 2001
83
                     RE: Biased?
Jun 25th 2001
106
                          Ok.
Jun 27th 2001
160
                               RE: Ok.
Jun 29th 2001
183
                                    Response
Jun 29th 2001
189
                                         I understand
Jun 30th 2001
190
                                              RE: I understand
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 30th 2001
196
torched
JESSEWA
Jun 22nd 2001
51
RE: torched
Jun 23rd 2001
61
      I have a question about free will
msm200
Jun 23rd 2001
64
      RE: I have a question about free will
Jun 23rd 2001
65
           Occlasi, you confuse me...
Jun 27th 2001
154
                sorry to confuse
Jun 28th 2001
170
      You allude to a good point . . .
Jun 23rd 2001
66
      RE: torched
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 25th 2001
122
bible- without error?
JESSEWA
Jun 23rd 2001
67
RE: bible- without error?
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 23rd 2001
68
      Basic reply . . .
Jun 23rd 2001
69
           RE: Basic reply . . .
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 23rd 2001
74
                this is not one:
Jun 24th 2001
78
                     RE: this is not one:
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 24th 2001
90
                          RE: this is not one:
Jun 24th 2001
94
                               RE: this is not one:
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 25th 2001
99
                               RE: this is not one:
Jun 26th 2001
133
                               VERY good, baby girl n/m
Jun 27th 2001
155
RE: Biblical Questions
Eklektisisum
Jun 23rd 2001
71
quick question:
Jun 24th 2001
79
RE: quick question:
Jun 24th 2001
80
RE: quick question:
Jun 24th 2001
81
      RE: quick answer:
Jun 25th 2001
107
RE: Aight Osoclasi
Eklektisisum
Jun 24th 2001
82
      RE: Aight Osoclasi
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 24th 2001
88
      RE: Aight Osoclasi
Jun 25th 2001
111
RE: Biblical Questions
kastfan
Jun 25th 2001
123
The WORD?
Jun 24th 2001
84
RE: The WORD?
Jun 25th 2001
112
      so in other words...
utamaroho
Jun 25th 2001
114
      RE: so in other words...
Jun 26th 2001
130
           osoclasi
Jun 29th 2001
188
      Here's the scriptures
Jun 26th 2001
129
           Then
Jun 27th 2001
162
                RE: Then
Jun 28th 2001
174
The Bible: Where' s the REST of it?
Jun 24th 2001
86
RE: The Bible: Where' s the REST of it?
Jun 25th 2001
115
Hmm
Jun 26th 2001
142
      canon of scripture:
Jun 27th 2001
147
Dear Solarus...
Jun 27th 2001
156
      Neither :-)
Jun 27th 2001
161
"once saved always saved"
Jun 24th 2001
91
RE: "once saved always saved"
philiagoddess
Jun 25th 2001
104
RE: "once saved always saved"
835
Jun 25th 2001
110
phil 1:6
Jun 25th 2001
116
"jewish loophole"
Jun 24th 2001
92
RE: "jewish loophole"
julius
Jun 25th 2001
121
RE: "jewish loophole"
Jun 25th 2001
125
"for the record"
Jun 24th 2001
93
RE: Romans 10: 9-11
Jun 26th 2001
137
Why is Jesus and Lucifer both called the Bright and Morning Star?
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 25th 2001
101
RE: Biblical Questions
rlc0923
Jun 25th 2001
102
catching in the holy ghost
GALKA
Jun 25th 2001
105
RE: Paul......
Jun 25th 2001
126
Why all the christian attention?
CROCODILE HUNTER
Jun 25th 2001
118
The BEST one to answer that is...
Jun 27th 2001
157
RE: Biblical Questions
Jun 25th 2001
127
psalm 22
Jun 26th 2001
131
RE: Biblical Questions
Jun 26th 2001
128
RE: Biblical Questions
Jun 26th 2001
132
      Yet
Jun 26th 2001
136
           RE: huh??
Jun 26th 2001
138
           RE: huh??
Jun 26th 2001
140
           RE: okay
Jun 26th 2001
141
           RE: corrections
Jun 26th 2001
143
           clarifications, please..............
Jun 27th 2001
148
           RE: sure
Jun 27th 2001
166
                the problem is this:
Jun 28th 2001
176
                     RE: there's no problem in what i stated
Jun 28th 2001
178
                          High ranking Polygamists in the Bible
Jun 29th 2001
180
                               exactly
Jun 29th 2001
181
                               RE: High ranking Polygamists in the Bible
Jun 29th 2001
185
                                    What about Abraham??
Jun 29th 2001
186
                                    As for Solomon
Jun 29th 2001
187
                                    RE: As for Solomon
Jun 30th 2001
192
                                         name mixup
Jun 30th 2001
195
                                         see
Jul 02nd 2001
204
                                    RE: What about Abraham??
Jun 30th 2001
191
                                    No, God does not change.
Jun 30th 2001
193
                                    RE: No, God does not change.
Jun 30th 2001
194
                                         sorry computer probs
Jun 30th 2001
199
                                    how did they pay?
Jul 02nd 2001
202
                                         RE: here's some ways
Jul 02nd 2001
210
                                         but what really happened to them?
Jul 05th 2001
248
                                              RE:
Jul 05th 2001
249
                                                   RE: RUN FROM WHAT'S HAPPENIN'................
Jul 05th 2001
252
                                         RE: how did they pay?
Jul 02nd 2001
214
           "Huh" is right!!!
Jun 27th 2001
158
           What do you mean
Jun 26th 2001
139
here it is again.... don't be scared to look it up in your bibles...
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 26th 2001
145
here's an answer:
Jun 27th 2001
149
RE: here it is again.... don't be scared to look it up in your bibles...
Dyskotek
Jun 27th 2001
150
Yeah, Right...
Jun 27th 2001
159
      RE: Yeah, Right...
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 27th 2001
165
      RE: Yeah, Right...
Jun 28th 2001
167
here's some scripture:
Jun 28th 2001
168
The answer to the question regarding Jesus and Lucifer....
LovMvmnt2001
Jul 02nd 2001
219
Paul the LIAR?
Jun 27th 2001
163
Peace 'light'
Gods Vessel
Jun 27th 2001
164
RE: Paul the LIAR?
Jun 28th 2001
169
good point.
Jun 28th 2001
171
      RE: good point.
IllipticallyDefined
Jun 28th 2001
179
           RE: good point.
Jun 29th 2001
184
RE: Biblical Questions
Jun 30th 2001
197
sun vs Son
Jun 30th 2001
198
      the bible and the sun:
Jul 01st 2001
200
      L-AZAR-US
Jul 03rd 2001
225
           RE: L-AZAR-US
Jul 04th 2001
226
                that just means
utamaroho
Jul 04th 2001
227
                RE: that just means
Jul 04th 2001
229
                     no
utamaroho
Jul 04th 2001
231
                          RE: First
Jul 04th 2001
235
                Several versions/parts to...
Jul 04th 2001
243
Heaven... the heaven borg
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 01st 2001
201
you are so silly
Jul 02nd 2001
215
      RE: you are so silly
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 02nd 2001
218
           can you wait?
Jul 04th 2001
233
here's one for you
Jul 02nd 2001
203
RE: here's one for you
Jul 02nd 2001
205
      from what i heard
Jul 02nd 2001
206
           RE: from what i heard
Jul 02nd 2001
213
                i was wrong
Jul 05th 2001
246
?'s for OSOCLASI
Jul 02nd 2001
207
ALSO...
Jul 02nd 2001
209
more answers:
Jul 02nd 2001
212
Answers:
Jul 02nd 2001
211
      I didn't realize:
Jul 02nd 2001
216
           My ONLY Skepticism...
Jul 02nd 2001
217
                RE: My ONLY Skepticism...
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 03rd 2001
222
                RE:
Jul 03rd 2001
223
                RE:
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 03rd 2001
224
                     EXACTLY!!!...& a correction...
Jul 04th 2001
239
                          I forgot my OWN correction...
Jul 04th 2001
240
                               RE: I forgot my OWN correction...
Jul 06th 2001
255
                RE: My ONLY Skepticism...
Jul 04th 2001
232
                     RE: My ONLY Skepticism...
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 04th 2001
234
                          RE: we had starting points........
Jul 04th 2001
237
                               1 question...
Jul 04th 2001
241
                               RE: we had starting points........
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 04th 2001
244
                               RE: we had starting points........
Jul 05th 2001
250
                               RE: we had starting points........
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 04th 2001
245
                                    RE: we had starting points........
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 05th 2001
247
                                    RE:
Jul 05th 2001
251
                                         RE:
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 05th 2001
253

Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Thu Jun-21-01 07:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "Incest: Good or Bad?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

HTP

My first question is an easy one to initiate this Q/A session. It's easy because it is a popular question often asked by curious "young'uns" in the church. (In fact Jamal on the Showtime series "Soulfood" ask this question to the preacher but instead of giving an answer the preacher sent him out the Bible study group for being disrespectful.) Also I'm sure this is a question that many okp's probably would like answered too.
Anyways the question(s) is(are):

Were Adam and Eve the ONLY people created by God? If so did their children procreate with one another?


The reader is never told with whom Adam and Eve's children procreate. But later we find that Cain has a wife (Genesis 4:16). One could speculate that the wife was a daughter of Adam and Eve since the birth record of women is rarely(ever?) given, however this would imply incest, which the Bible states as wrong.

According to the Book of Leviticus, incest is wrong.
For instance:
Leviticus 20:12 (NASV)
'If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Anyway that's it for this one. Simple huh?

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Mokudan
Member since Sep 27th 2002
2 posts
Thu Jun-21-01 08:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Other people created"
In response to Reply # 1


          


>Were Adam and Eve the ONLY
>people created by God? If
>so did their children procreate
>with one another?

The first chapters of Genesis provide two DISTINCT creation stories. (Undoubtedly they are the products of different authors, possibly working centuries apart from one another. That's the thing about the O.T., ya know?) Anyway, check out Gen 1:27. (I happen to have a Revised Standard Version in front of me, so that's what I'm quoting.) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Okay, now move on to 2:4-7. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground— then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

This second creation is the beginning of the story, and the man referred to here turns out to be Adam, as we all know. So if you want to read the Bible in a literal way, then the answer to your question is no, Adam and Eve weren't the only folks God created.

This all begs the question, "Why, then, are there two creation stories side by side in the Bible?" There's a very cool theory I've heard about this which maybe I'll get around to posting later if anyone's interested.

---
"see this letter I, o world"
http://whatisay.org

"A man sets out to draw the
world. As the years go by,
he peoples a space with
images of provinces,
kingdoms, mountains,
bays, ships, islands, fishes,
rooms, instruments, stars,
horses, and individuals. A
short time before he dies,
he di

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Incest: Good or Bad?"
In response to Reply # 1


          

>HTP
>
>My first question is an easy
>one to initiate this Q/A
>session. It's easy because it
>is a popular question often
>asked by curious "young'uns" in
>the church. (In fact Jamal
>on the Showtime series "Soulfood"
>ask this question to the
>preacher but instead of giving
>an answer the preacher sent
>him out the Bible study
>group for being disrespectful.) Also
>I'm sure this is a
>question that many okp's probably
>would like answered too.
>Anyways the question(s) is(are):
>
>Were Adam and Eve the ONLY
>people created by God? If
>so did their children procreate
>with one another?

Responce: Yes, they procreated with one another.
>
>
>The reader is never told with
>whom Adam and Eve's children
>procreate. But later we find
>that Cain has a wife
>(Genesis 4:16). One could speculate
>that the wife was a
>daughter of Adam and Eve
>since the birth record of
>women is rarely(ever?) given, however
>this would imply incest, which
>the Bible states as wrong.

Responce: first there was no command in Cain's day not to marry a close relative. The commandment in Lev 18 came 1000 years later. Since the human race started with Adam and Eve Cain had no one else to marry except a close relative.
>
>
>
>Anyway that's it for this one.
>Simple huh?

Responce: Yes, but still a good question thou.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 11:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "RE: check you inbox"
In response to Reply # 10


          

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
lambda
Member since Aug 14th 2002
72 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:25 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "RE: Incest: Good or Bad?"
In response to Reply # 1


          

Jewish tradition says that Cain and Abel both married their sisters. It says in some sources th at these sisters were born at the same time as each of them, and also that Abel had two sisters and Cain had a single one.

The prohibition on incest (for all of humanity, not just the Jews) was not in place at the time, for the reason that the earth needed to be populated.

And no, I'm not Jewish, I'm converting.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Thu Jun-21-01 07:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Christ: Hanged or Crucified?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

HTP

This is another easy one because I've heard several people ask about this one before, too.

Question:

Was Jesus Christ hanged from a tree or crucified on a cross?

According to the Apostle Paul in the Book of Galatians,

Galatians 3:13 (NASV)
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

Then Peter says about Christ in the Book of 1 Peter:
1 Peter 2:24 (KJV)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 Peter 2:24 (NASV)
and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

(The KJV and NASV say different things here: cross vs. tree. What's up with that?)

Then in Acts 8:30 (another KJV/NASV "mix-up"), the Apostles say:
Acts 5:30 (NASV)
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.


Acts 5:30 (NASV)
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.


Commonly the depiction of Jesus' execution is one of being put on the cross and held in the Gospels, but the previously mentioned example suggest he was hanged from a tree. And if one looks in the Old Testament one can see that the "tree" execution is clearly detailed as a method of execution for "sinners."

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (NASV)
"If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,
his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.


Passing the Mic to ya.


PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
DonQuijote

Thu Jun-21-01 08:14 PM

  
5. "Judas"
In response to Reply # 2


          

>"CURSED IS EVERYONE
>WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

>And if one looks in
>the Old Testament one can
>see that the "tree" execution
>is clearly detailed as a
>method of execution for "sinners."
>
>
>Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (NASV)
>"If a man has committed a
>sin worthy of death and
>he is put to death,
>and you hang him on
>a tree,
>his corpse shall not hang all
>night on the tree, but
>you shall surely bury him
>on the same day (for
>he who is hanged is
>accursed of God), so that
>you do not defile your
>land which the LORD your
>God gives you as an
>inheritance.

not sure about those other verses that specifically mention Christ, but after he betrayed Jesus Judas hung himself from a tree in the garden. Maybe these verses are refering to Judas, not Jesus.

Peace
______________________________________
"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love."
- Che Guevara

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:24 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "answer"
In response to Reply # 2


          

no particular scriptural references (which may somehow disqualify the answer in your book), but in order to crucify to you not have to hang (ie - like you "hang" a picture)?

similarly, could the two phrases not mean the same thing?

meaning: if the cross was made from a tree could it not still be considered a tree? could the "tree" term not be symbolic of the cross?

is this a matter of the english used to "translate" the original terms?

just wondering.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?"
In response to Reply # 2


          

>HTP
>
>This is another easy one because
>I've heard several people ask
>about this one before, too.
>
>
>Question:
>
>Was Jesus Christ hanged from a
>tree or crucified on a
>cross?

Responce: A cross.
>
>According to the Apostle Paul in
>the Book of Galatians,
>
>Galatians 3:13 (NASV)
>Christ redeemed us from the curse
>of the Law, having become
>a curse for us--for it
>is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE
>WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

Responce: This has nothing to do with the cross, but I thought it should be noted that Jesus was cursed for us on earth. Because judically he became our substitute.
>
>
>Then Peter says about Christ in
>the Book of 1 Peter:
>
>1 Peter 2:24 (KJV)
>Who his own self bare our
>sins in his own body
>on the tree, that we,
>being dead to sins, should
>live unto righteousness: by whose
>stripes ye were healed.
>
>1 Peter 2:24 (NASV)
>and He Himself bore our sins
>in His body on the
>cross, so that we might
>die to sin and live
>to righteousness; for by His
>wounds you were healed.
>
>(The KJV and NASV say different
>things here: cross vs. tree.
>What's up with that?)

Responce: Because the word tree is used to describe the cross. Like its Hebrew counter part, the greek for this word could refer to a tree, a pole, or a wooden beam or some object.

So in responce to those other verses the tree is just a figurative reference to the cross. Also if you look at John 19:17 it says that Jesus carried his own cross. Also in verse 19 it says that Pilate had a note fasten to the cross saying Jesus king of .....
>
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 09:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Also . . ."
In response to Reply # 14


          

Keep in mind that crucifixion "evolved" from empailing, which is what crucifixion was closer to when the oringnal statement that Paul was quoting was made (Deuter. 21:33)

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 04:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "If that is the case"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

Then why does the KJV and NASV used different words at different points of the Bible, instead of universally saying "cross." Also as far as the New Testament goes the earliest copies of it, are in GREEK. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the word in Greek is "stauros" and refers to "stake" or "pole" as you suggested. However they do not believe that Jesus was put on a "cross."

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 03:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
146. "RE: If that is the case"
In response to Reply # 85


          

>Then why does the KJV and
>NASV used different words at
> different points of the
>Bible, instead of universally saying
>"cross."

Responce: Because the authors of the scriptures used different words assuming that the audience would know what they were talking about(it's a figure of speech). also we get the word excruciating from the ordeal because it means "out of the cross". When the authors used tree the were refering to the fact that it was made from a tree.

Also as far
>as the New Testament goes
>the earliest copies of it,
>are in GREEK. According
>to Jehovah's Witnesses, the word
>in Greek is "stauros" and
>refers to "stake" or "pole"
>as you suggested. However
>they do not believe that
>Jesus was put on a
>"cross."
>
Responce: Yeah, Jehovah witnesses don't believe a lot of things that Christians believe. All one has to do is look through history and see that the Romans never put people on a pole as a means of cruxifition they always used the cross. And by the time that Christ came around they had actually gotten pretty good at it. then two you have to remember that Jesus had physical scars that indicated that he had been cruxified by means of a cross, and the manner at which he died shows that he was cruxified by means of a cross.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
LobbyFunkster
Charter member
899 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 10:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
177. "It's "Response" not "Responce""
In response to Reply # 14


          

Man, I hate bad spelling. It was hurting my eyes.

----------
Kebomusic Presents: The Soul Prototype
The Debut Digital EP - AVAILABLE NOW ON iTUNES!

www.kebomusic.com
www.twitter.com/kebomusic
www.facebook.com/kebomusic
www.myspace.com/kebomusic

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 05:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
182. "whatever"
In response to Reply # 177


          

you get the point

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
835

Fri Jun-22-01 01:35 PM

  
46. "RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?"
In response to Reply # 2


          

A crucifiction cross was also referred to as a "tree" in those days. Kinda like "my crib" but I don't really live in a crib. See what I'm sayin?

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
835

Fri Jun-22-01 01:37 PM

  
47. "RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?"
In response to Reply # 46


          

Also, He did technically "hang" from the cross because of the way crucifiction works. He was hanging from the nails put through Him into the cross. It really hurts to let yourself hang there and you can't breathe, so you try to pull yourself up to breathe, but that hurts worse. That's how it was explained to me anyway...

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
ya Setshego
Charter member
4259 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 11:21 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
117. "What is:"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

NASV? New Something Something Version? What is the Something Something?


>>(The KJV and NASV say different
>things here: cross vs. tree.
>What's up with that?)



"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" — they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white
-(Me)

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
CROCODILE HUNTER

Mon Jun-25-01 11:41 AM

  
119. "DUMBASS QUESTION"
In response to Reply # 117


          

Use a search engine. Lazy okplayers. Sad.

http://www.altavista.com/
http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.google.com/
http://askjeeves.com/


"What do I do? I HUNT CROCKS! And I smell a CROCK OF SHIT COOKING RIGHT HERE!" -Yours Truly

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
ya Setshego
Charter member
4259 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 12:50 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
124. "If you know,"
In response to Reply # 119


  

          

answer the question. Otherwise, keep your -Energy to yourself.

Thank you.

"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" — they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white
-(Me)

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
ya Setshego
Charter member
4259 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 06:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
135. "Maybe"
In response to Reply # 124


  

          

New American Standard Version?

NASV?

"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" — they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white
-(Me)

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
ya Setshego
Charter member
4259 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 08:03 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
175. "Thank U for this, though."
In response to Reply # 119


  

          

>>http://www.altavista.com/
>http://www.yahoo.com/
>http://www.google.com/
>http://askjeeves.com/


"Next to God we are indebted to Afrikan women, first for
giving us life and secondly for making that life worth
living." -author unknown

"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" — they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white
-(Me)

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Roses

Mon Jul-02-01 12:11 PM

  
208. "RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified?"
In response to Reply # 2


          

Hi Again, and God Bless you. That's the same thing the Pharisees were asking when denying Christ as God. A cross is made from wood, a tree. He was hanging from nails on the cross, the people watched Him hang there and release His soul to the Father. It is very simple, and I know that you folk here are intelligent people. The real question is, do you believe that he was resurrected on the third day, by the power of God, as prophesied in the Bible (studied, but denied by the Pharisees)?
In the book of Titus, in the NT, written by Paul for the purpose of appointing leadership in the church he explains some foundational leadership, or false leadership qualities:

TITUS, 1:10-16
For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party ( Rose's addition: the Jewish Pharisees who do not believe that Jesus is indeed the Chrits!) ;they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain ( R: selfishness ) what they have no right to teach. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or commands of men who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very mind and conciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
LovMvmnt2001

Mon Jul-02-01 09:22 PM

  
220. "RE: Christ: Hanged or Crucified? Surely wasn't crucified!!!"
In response to Reply # 2


          

I don't mean to come in real late in this convo, but I didn't see the answer I was looking for....not to dismiss anyone's input in this subject, but I would like to share with all that read this, not my words, but words that come from encyclopedias and even certain religious books....this may help some to look at this issue of whether the tree being described could of been a cross, and not only that, but where the symbol of the cross came from:

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary:
"The Greek word for cross, (stauros'), properly siginifed a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground...Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our term for cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole."

Perhaps this may do nothing for you, but if it doesn't, consider this next sources as regards to the cross that many hold dearly as the symbol of Christianity:

Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia, and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples...The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship."

A Short History of Sex Worship (1940):
"Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus or of coition."

(Phallus is known as a representation of the male sex organ, properly said)

One more,
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
"The shape of the cross had its orgin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd century, A.D., the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system, pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."

What I get out of this is as much as there seems to be evidence that Christ was crucified, there is even more convincing evidence to show that he was hung or impaled on a upright stake and this symbol of the cross used by many churches today to be the symbol of Christianity may not have a pure meaning as some believe so. This is not meant to belittle anyone's faith, but rather, like myself, unbiased knowledge leads to conscientious decisions and beliefs.

Any questions or disagreements that would like to be presented, either reply back or e-mail me at rbaca@charter.net

Loveout.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Tue Jul-03-01 04:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
221. "Good observation"
In response to Reply # 220


  

          


____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 05:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
228. "cruxified"
In response to Reply # 220


          

>I don't mean to come in
>real late in this convo,
>but I didn't see the
>answer I was looking for....

Response: What answer were you looking for?

not
>to dismiss anyone's input in
>this subject, but I would
>like to share with all
>that read this, not my
>words, but words that come
>from encyclopedias and even certain
>religious books....this may help some
>to look at this issue
>of whether the tree being
>described could of been a
>cross, and not only that,
>but where the symbol of
>the cross came from:

Response: Sure no prob.
>
>The Imperial Bible-Dictionary:
>"The Greek word for cross, (stauros'),
>properly siginifed a stake, an
>upright pole, or piece of
>paling, on which anything might
>be hung, or which might
>be used in impaling (fencing
>in) a piece of ground...Even
>amongst the Romans the crux
>(from which our term for
>cross is derived) appears to
>have been originally an upright
>pole."

Response: This might be, but the pole only indicates the foundation of the cross.
>
>Perhaps this may do nothing for
>you, but if it doesn't,
>consider this next sources as
>regards to the cross that
>many hold dearly as the
>symbol of Christianity:
>
>Encyclopedia Brittanica:
>"Various objects, dating from periods long
>anterior to the Christian era,
>have been found, marked with
>crosses of different designs, in
>almost every part of the
>old world. India, Syria, Persia,
>and Egypt have all yielded
>numberless examples...The use of the
>cross as a religious symbol
>in pre-Christian times and among
>non-Christian peoples may probably be
>regarded as almost universal, and
>in very many cases it
>was connected with some form
>of nature worship."

Response: This is correct, the Persians were the first to use the cross historically. But it was also used in Phonenicia, Carthage and Egypt. The Persians believed that fire, water, and earth were sacred elements, and all customary methods of execution defiled the sacred element. So they invented the a method of cruxifying by impaling victims above the earth where they were left to die. Later cultures developed different methods of cruxifiction, and Rome employed several of them.
>
>A Short History of Sex Worship
>(1940):
>"Various figures of crosses are found
>everywhere on Egyptian monuments and
>tombs, and are considered by
>many authorities as symbolical either
>of the phallus or of
>coition."

Response: Good point, but were're talking about Roman Cruxifiction.

>(Phallus is known as a representation
>of the male sex organ,
>properly said)
>
>One more,
>An Expository Dictionary of New Testament
>Words:
>"The shape of the cross had
>its orgin in ancient Chaldea,
>and was used as the
>symbol of the god Tammuz
>(being in the shape of
>the mystic Tau, the initial
>of his name) in that
>country and in adjacent lands,
>including Egypt. By the middle
>of the 3rd century, A.D.,
>the churches had either departed
>from, or had travestied, certain
>doctrines of the Christian faith.
>In order to increase the
>prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical
>system, pagans were received into
>the churches apart from regeneration
>by faith, and were permitted
>largely to retain their pagan
>signs and symbols. Hence the
>Tau or T, in its
>most frequent form, with the
>cross-piece lowered, was adopted to
>stand for the cross of
>Christ."

Response: OK, this is good.
>
>What I get out of this
>is as much as there
>seems to be evidence that
>Christ was crucified, there is
>even more convincing evidence to
>show that he was hung
>or impaled on a upright
>stake and this symbol of
>the cross used by many
>churches today to be the
>symbol of Christianity may not
>have a pure meaning as
>some believe so. This is
>not meant to belittle anyone's
>faith, but rather, like myself,
>unbiased knowledge leads to conscientious
>decisions and beliefs.

Response: Yeah,but you left out a whole lot of things, heres some in some of the books of Josephus he states that Roman Governor of Syria, Quintictilius Varus, cruxified two thousand men by means of the cross. Also he says that Titus cruxified so many people in AD 70 that there was no wood left for the cross and no place to set them up.

Also the medical evidence states that Jesus must have been cruxified, first cruxificton is essentialy death by asphyxiation, as the intercostal and petoral muscles around the lung halt normal breathing while the body hangs in the "down" positon. One could not fake his death because they could'nt breath. The cross bar that Jesus arms were on was called the patibulum, and before the victim was raised in the air it was seperate from the vertical beam(this is the part refered to as the tree). The Romans used spikes five to seven inches long. They were driven through the median nerve. The largest nerve going out to the hand.

The reason asphxiaton took place is that it stresses the muscles and diaphram by putting the chest into the inhaled position; basically the only way to breath the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would ease. In doing so the nail would tear through the foot. As the person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidsis- the carbion dioxide in the blood is dissovled as carbonic acid, causing irregular heartbeat. This is why Jesus said into thy hands I commend my spirit because he knew the moment he was about to die. OF cardiac arrest.

Also Jesus would have sufferd hypovelemic shock.1) the heart rate goes up 2)the blood pressure drops causing fainting or collapse 3)the kidney stop producing urine to maintain what volume left 4) the person becomes very thristy. And there is evidence of this in the gospel account. Jesus was in hypovelemic shock on his walk to calvery as he staggered up the road to the execution carrying the vertical beam(patibulum) and Jesus collapsed. Later we read that Jesus said I thrist at which point a sip of vineger was offered to him. So I think its pretty clear Jesus was cruxified.
>
>Any questions or disagreements that would
>like to be presented, either
>reply back or e-mail me
>at rbaca@charter.net
>
>Loveout.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
utamaroho

Wed Jul-04-01 05:14 AM

  
230. "what medical evidence?"
In response to Reply # 228


          

>>Also the medical evidence states


(((((PEACE)))))
____________________________________________________________
“One who has not studied the facts has no place in a discussion.” -Mao Zedong

"God is good, me love God, God love me. God will take care of me, Jesus love me too, I will repent all my sins and give me to Jesus, Jesus will take me to heaven with him. Jesus loves me, me good. Me give money to church, church good. Pastor needs new car, Jesus loves me, Jesus loves pastor. Jesus is God, jesus is son of God, Jesus is father of god, me confused now. Me go to sleep now, me need nap, me brain tired. -Christians"
-ish_skywalker

"Considering the fact that Islam is a disgrace to human kind, Christianity is a disgrace to everything in the universe, Judiasm is just one confusing mess, and the rest of em are all praying to aliens from outer space. I say we have a religion where the only rule is that you know how to roll a Garcia Vega. Ya know? And if I can't be god, can I be one of the people who gets to make hypocritical rules and then not follow them like them stinking Catholics? Please, pretty please, with the Annunaki on top?" -ish_skywalker

"That 112 song that says "If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it and you really want to show it...if you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap)." This TRULY sucks. I shut it off after that, but i'm still wondering if the second verse says "if you're sexy and you know it stomp your feet (stomp, stomp)". This is an all time low for music, period. It makes me wish 2 of those guys from 112 would die so they could be called 110." -NazDak

"nah man, that's suicide...jumping off bridge is suicide, blowing your brains out is suicide...letting wyclef handle your album 100% like is suicide...that...is stupid suicide...lol but there lurks a dark humor about getting your ass beat by gang members..." PlanetInfinite


THIS IS SOME FUNNY SHIT!


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 07:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
236. "RE: did you read it............."
In response to Reply # 230


          

for real.....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
utamaroho

Wed Jul-04-01 08:00 AM

  
238. "this modern medical evidence"
In response to Reply # 236


          

where did it say this fictional jesus character went through this...

your using the perspective of today to describe something that may or may not have happened. i was talking about medical evidence from back then. records of this character going through these physical conditions. anyone can describe something from the past with present day infromation. where are the people then in that period that made those observations.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 02:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
242. "they don't exist"
In response to Reply # 238


  

          


____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jul-06-01 03:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
254. "RE: this modern medical evidence"
In response to Reply # 238


          

>where did it say this fictional
>jesus character went through this...

Response: He went through this during his cruxifiction
>
>
>your using the perspective of today
>to describe something that may
>or may not have happened.
>i was talking about medical
>evidence from back then

Resonse: You obivious didn't read it very closely but here it is again. If a person was to go through hypovolemic shock which every victim of Roman Flogging went through, there are certain syptoms they show. One the either faint or collapse, Jesus did just that on the way to the cruxifiction he collapsed right in the middle of the road. 2) The become really thristy just as Jesus did when he was offered the viniger.3) Irregular heartbeat is another sign right before you die and you can feel it this is how Jesus could say into your hands i commend my spirit. 4) Also fluid forms around the heart right before the victim dies, this is why when the Roman soilder poked Jesus with the spear blood and water came out, well it wasn't water it was fluid. But the gospel writer was recording what he saw.

records
>of this character going through
>these physical conditions. anyone can
>describe something from the past
>with present day infromation. where
>are the people then in
>that period that made those
>observations.

Response: No, they can't. the people who were in this period were the gospel writers, but they didn't have advanced medical degrees that we have today, so they would not have been able to label something as we do today. Also not just Jesus every person who loses a lot of blood rapidly goes through this.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Mokudan
Member since Sep 27th 2002
2 posts
Thu Jun-21-01 08:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 0


          


Romans 13:1 is a fairly controversial passage in the New Testament, and one can see why: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Anybody have or know of interpretations of this that add up? I can't really make sense of it on its own; it's too much of a blanket statement. Are we really to presume that, say, Hitler was endowed with a mandate from God and that Germans, as good Christians in the 1930s and 1940s, were obliged to follow him? That's one obvious example but one could come up with a lot more. Maybe I'm reading it too literally...

---
"see this letter I, o world"
http://whatisay.org

"A man sets out to draw the
world. As the years go by,
he peoples a space with
images of provinces,
kingdoms, mountains,
bays, ships, islands, fishes,
rooms, instruments, stars,
horses, and individuals. A
short time before he dies,
he di

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 4


          

>
>Romans 13:1 is a fairly controversial
>passage in the New Testament,
>and one can see why:
>"Let every person be subject
>to the governing authorities. For
>there is no authority except
>from God, and those that
>exist have been instituted by
>God."

Responce: What this passage is saying is to submit to governiong authorities. What Paul is saying is that all goverment authorities are established by God and Christians must honer them. So if they come with a certain tax then we must honer that tax and so forth.

>Anybody have or know of interpretations
>of this that add up?
>I can't really make sense
>of it on its own;
>it's too much of a
>blanket statement. Are we really
>to presume that, say, Hitler
>was endowed with a mandate
>from God and that Germans,
>as good Christians in the
>1930s and 1940s, were obliged
>to follow him? That's one
>obvious example but one could
>come up with a lot
>more. Maybe I'm reading it
>too literally...

Responce: No, Christians were not to follow anyone but Christ. But we are suppose to honer the laws that the government has bestowed in front of us. Back in Pauls day even the threat of Christians being persecuted by the state did not change his convictions.
>
>---


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Ape Redwood
Charter member
6088 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 09:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
24. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

Then was Jesus being hypocritical by not following Old Testament laws, some of which I believe were proscribed by the local gov't. Or were these laws just social customs, not laws? I'll try to come with specifics.

---------------------
Thursday, June 17th
Dujeous @ Bowery Ballroom
6 Delancey Street (at Bowery)
w/Addison Groove Project &
Gutbucket
10PM~$13
DUJEOUS debut LP "CITY
LIMITS" INSTOSNOW.
Buy my shit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 24


          

First, Jesus didn't go against Old Testament law, he fulfilled it (see Matt. 5:17) and was thus the embodiment. Old Testament law was not local gov't law, Roman law was. Two things you must keep in mind, the New Testament was not the New Testament when Jesus lived, it became the New Testament when the writings were compiled, meaning that Jesus was living in Old Testament times, but the culture was dominated by the Roman empire. Furthurmore, understand who the book of Romans is written to, the Romans. The context of the scripture and the book is Paul explaining how the Romans, though they were non-Jews, how they could receive salvation through grace by Christ (Romans 10:8-12) and how they were "grafted into the tree" (Romans 11). The scripture in question is admonishing them that, though they've made this radical change in their system of worship (remember mythology and the roman theocratic system?) they were still subject to Roman law. In Acts, there is an instance where Paul was beaten, and eventually caused a lot of trouble for his aggressors because he was a Roman citizen and they didn't know it, meaning that they were subject to trouble (see Acts 22:26). This is a loose connection, but it's an example of Roman law.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 24


          

>Then was Jesus being hypocritical by
>not following Old Testament laws,
>some of which I believe
>were proscribed by the local
>gov't. Or were these laws
>just social customs, not laws?
>I'll try to come with
>specifics.

Responce: No not at all. Jesus fufilled the Law to a tee. Meaning that all those laws that you see in the Old Testamenat Jesus did 100%. Also it should be noted that the goverment in the Old Testament was called a theocractic kingdom( meaning God himself was the governer and king of Isreal).


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
835

Fri Jun-22-01 01:55 PM

  
50. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 24


          

Man was connected with God until the first sin. Then in order to get closer to God, you had to do all types of burnt offerings, sacrifices, etc. Jesus was the last sacrifice. "I am the lamb that is slain" because one of the sacrifices was to take a lamb without blemish and kill it. Because of His sacrifice, the sacrifices and rituals weren't needed to be close to God anymore, because Jesus closed the gap between God and man and all it took after that was accepting Jesus and His sacrifice.

The story of Abraham and Issac is a mirror of Jesus's story because God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Read up on that joint for some interesting stuff!

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
835

Fri Jun-22-01 01:49 PM

  
49. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 16


          

But He also said "give to ceasar what is his and give to God what is His". That doesn't mean all laws are put here by God...it means that God made man and man doesn't technically own anything. Jesus wasn't about being subdued by ANY government...that's part of what got Him killed.

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Mokudan
Member since Sep 27th 2002
2 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 08:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 16


          


Thanks for your responses. Forgive me for pushing a literal reading again, but I still can't get my head around the potential for whopping contradictions here.

I can accept the proposition that God wields the power to institute governments or regimes in any way shape or form that He so pleases. I also have no problem with the idea that no matter what, Christians are obliged to follow the rules set down in the N.T. Rom. 13:1 says, pretty explicitly, that Christians are supposed to follow the rules of the authorities (there is also, of course, the famous saying of Christ's, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, etc. etc."), right? So what if the authorities are completely ad odds with the NT?

---
"see this letter I, o world"
http://whatisay.org

"A man sets out to draw the
world. As the years go by,
he peoples a space with
images of provinces,
kingdoms, mountains,
bays, ships, islands, fishes,
rooms, instruments, stars,
horses, and individuals. A
short time before he dies,
he di

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
173. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 72


          

>
>Thanks for your responses. Forgive me
>for pushing a literal reading
>again, but I still can't
>get my head around the
>potential for whopping contradictions here.
>
>
>I can accept the proposition that
>God wields the power to
>institute governments or regimes in
>any way shape or form
>that He so pleases. I
>also have no problem with
>the idea that no matter
>what, Christians are obliged to
>follow the rules set down
>in the N.T. Rom. 13:1
>says, pretty explicitly, that Christians
>are supposed to follow the
>rules of the authorities (there
>is also, of course, the
>famous saying of Christ's, "give
>unto Caesar what is Caesar's,
>etc. etc."), right? So what
>if the authorities are completely
>ad odds with the NT?

Responce: Sorry I did'nt see this. A good answer to your question lies in the book of Daniel 1. Remember during the exile, Daniel refused to eat the food of Nebuchanezzar because Jews though it to be contaminated because it was used to worship false idols. also in Dan 3 when Nebuchanezzar wanted everyone to bow down and Shadrach and Meshach would'nt. The point is when the goverment goes against the word of GOd then God's word should be put first, and you must trust in God to support you no matter what the outcome maybe. This not a contridiction it just shows that as Christians God's law is first then man's law is second.
>
>
>---
>"see this letter I, o world"
>
>http://whatisay.org



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
835

Fri Jun-22-01 01:45 PM

  
48. "RE: Romans 13:1"
In response to Reply # 4


          

God would personally institute any authority on earth (i.e. Jesus). That's the flaw in several other religions that base themselves on Christianity. Mormons say the "angel maroni" came to Joe Smith and told him the book of Mormon, but it says in the Bible (I forget the coordinates right now since I'm at work) that the only way you should add to or adjust His word is if He Himself comes to you. Angels and demons are the same thing, except the demons are fallen and evil, but they have the same abilities.

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

DonQuijote

Thu Jun-21-01 08:32 PM

  
6. "Exodus 10:16-20"
In response to Reply # 0


          

"Then Pharaoh hurriedly called for Moses and Aaron, and he said, 'I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. Now therefore, please forgive my sin only this once, and make supplication to the Lord your God, that He would only remove this death from me.' (Moses) went out from Pharaoh and made supplication to the Lord. So the Lord shifted the wind to a very strong west wind which took up the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not one locust was left in all the territory of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go."

During the first seven plagues of Egypt, Pharaoh hardens his heart of his own accord and refuses to release Moses. But, in the eight, ninth, and tenth plagues Pharaoh relents. However each time the Lord now hardens Pharaoh's heart and keeps Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. This begs for an eschatological/teleological explanation - all things must move forward to a predetermined event. In this case I think it's the symbolic importance of Passover - would the story of Exodus be different if the Israelites were released after the seventh plague? Later on Pharaoh has reservations about pursuing the Israelites into the Red Sea, but once again the Lord hardens his heart and forces the action. Christian philosophy imposes a teleolgical structure on history - everything that has happened or will happen is structural and directed towards the Apocalypse - literally "the revealing" in Greek, the revelation of God's divine plan. What do you think? Have any alternate explanations?

Peace
______________________________________
"At the risk of sounding ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love."
- Che Guevara

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: Exodus 10:16-20"
In response to Reply # 6


          

>"Then Pharaoh hurriedly called for Moses
>and Aaron, and he said,
>'I have sinned against the
>Lord your God and against
>you. Now therefore, please
>forgive my sin only this
>once, and make supplication to
>the Lord your God, that
>He would only remove this
>death from me.' (Moses)
>went out from Pharaoh and
>made supplication to the Lord.
> So the Lord shifted
>the wind to a very
>strong west wind which took
>up the locusts and drove
>them into the Red Sea;
>not one locust was left
>in all the territory of
>Egypt. But the Lord
>hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he
>did not let the sons
>of Israel go."
>
>During the first seven plagues of
>Egypt, Pharaoh hardens his heart
>of his own accord and
>refuses to release Moses.
>But, in the eight, ninth,
>and tenth plagues Pharaoh relents.
> However each time the
>Lord now hardens Pharaoh's heart
>and keeps Moses and the
>Israelites in Egypt. This
>begs for an eschatological/teleological explanation
>- all things must move
>forward to a predetermined event.
> In this case I
>think it's the symbolic importance
>of Passover - would the
>story of Exodus be different
>if the Israelites were released
>after the seventh plague?

Responce: I'm not quite sure what your saying here but oh well just tell me if I'm off. No, not at all what the Pharoah did was according to his own free will, when God hardened his heart it was by means of grace( God let up the plague the pharoah heart grew hard, so God was responsible because he let up). So since God did not force the pharoah to keep the isrealites pass his own free will then you can't say that the Pharoah ever would have let them go after the seventh plague.

>Later on Pharaoh has reservations
>about pursuing the Israelites into
>the Red Sea, but once
>again the Lord hardens his
>heart and forces the action.

Responce: Correct. But God did not harden his heart outside of his own free will.

> Christian philosophy imposes a
>teleolgical structure on history -
>everything that has happened or
>will happen is structural and
>directed towards the Apocalypse -
>literally "the revealing" in Greek,
>the revelation of God's divine
>plan. What do you
>think? Have any alternate
>explanations?

Responce: I'd have to agree. The Lord did raise the Pharoah up to show his power. But this does not knock out free will in any way, it just amplifies that God is sovergn .

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
151. "How Can You say this?"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

When it says QUITE CLEARLY in Exodus that THE LORD hardened Pharoah's heart? you sound like this to me:

Don't worry about what the book says, I'm telling you that God didn't harden Pharoah's heart outside of Pharoah's free will...God did it like this, blah, blah, blah....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
172. "easily"
In response to Reply # 151


          

>When it says QUITE CLEARLY in
>Exodus that THE LORD hardened
>Pharoah's heart? you sound
>like this to me:
>
>Don't worry about what the book
>says, I'm telling you that
>God didn't harden Pharoah's heart
>outside of Pharoah's free will...God
>did it like this, blah,
>blah, blah....

Responce : No, thats not what I said. I said that pharoah hardend his heart first and then God hardened his heart later. But it was not outside of Pharoahs will.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
lambda
Member since Aug 14th 2002
72 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:28 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "RE: Exodus 10:16-20"
In response to Reply # 6


          

A simple answer is as follows:

After all of the plagues and wonders that Pharaoh had seen, he would eventually lose his free will. So, in order to *maintain* Pharaoh's free will, God hardened his heart. Otherwise he would not have had free will any longer.

There are deeper explanations of this as well, and if you want to know them, I can try to explain them.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Angel
Charter member
204 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 04:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: I Have a Question"
In response to Reply # 0


          


Ok!!!! When you first die, where does your soul go? As stated in Revelation, you can not enter into the kingdom of heaven unless your name is written in the book of life. That will not happen until Jesus returns. The second death is to be thrown into the lake of fire. So in the first death, where does your soul go. This is just my guess, maybe all the souls still walk the earth and that is why we have ghosts that haunt us. Just a thought.


-------------------------------------------
You may have walked away,
but we're still as close as when I gazed,
deep in your gentle eyes

stonewinters@hotmail.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
kastfan

Fri Jun-22-01 07:39 AM

  
8. "Incest was acceptable and necessary"
In response to Reply # 7


          

Incest was essential since Adam and Eve and their children were the only humans at that time. Here is an excerpt from the website answersingenesis.org that explains it further.

The Bible teaches clearly that all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve-thus there had to be inter-marriage between brother and sister. There would have been no risk of this causing harmful deformities in the offspring, because mutations (accidental changes in the hereditary information) need time to occur and accumulate in a population. Thus the first few generations would have inherited perfect or near-perfect genes, largely undamaged by mutations. In the pre-Flood world, harmful radiation from the sun and other cosmic sources was considerably more filtered than it is in the post-Flood world. Increased radiation and depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere (subsequent to the lowering of the atmospheric pressure) may have contributed greatly to man's rapid degeneration. With the passing of many centuries, many of these harmful, degenerative changes became added to the human race, so by the time of Moses it was absolutely necessary to have laws against incest, and these were given to mankind (Leviticus 18-20). Today there would be even more chance of deformity/disease in the offspring of such a union than in Moses's time. Because of the long life-spans, Adam and Eve's descendants may have been very numerous and widely dispersed before Cain even took a wife-that is, any inhabitants of the land of Nod would have been descendants of Adam and Eve, who had many sons and daughters.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:19 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "dunno about that"
In response to Reply # 8


          

what about this:
(Genesis 4:16) Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.


point being, just because it says adam and eve were first, it doesn't say "only" (if it does, show where)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "this is not very logical"
In response to Reply # 8


          


https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Chike
Charter member
32916 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 05:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "RE: this is not very logical"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

Care to explain that? It sounded very logical to me, and eye-opening. Whether or no he's 100% correct, I never thought about things that way before.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 11:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "RE: check your inbox"
In response to Reply # 63


          

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 04:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "come on"
In response to Reply # 63


          

besides the fact that he has NO scientific evidence of the radiation factor during pre flood period both scientifically and biblically. and the near perfect genes things.

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
kastfan

Mon Jun-25-01 10:58 AM

  
113. "RE: come on"
In response to Reply # 100


          

>besides the fact that he has
>NO scientific evidence of the
>radiation factor during pre flood
>period both scientifically and biblically.
>and the near perfect genes
>things.

The "near perfect genes thing" is very logical. God's creation was perfect in the beginning. Therefore, there would not have been any mutations in adam and eve, meaning that it would not be dangerous for their children to produce children together. the reason incest is dangerous is because siblings are very likely to have the same mutations in their genes, which means that their offspring would be severely "messed up."


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 11:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "RE: Check your inbox"
In response to Reply # 8


          

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
kastfan

Fri Jun-22-01 07:44 AM

  
9. "RE: I Have a Question"
In response to Reply # 7


          

Angel,

There is a great book by Hank Hanegraff called Resurrection that explains the afterlife, what will happen after death, what heaven will be like after Jesus' return, etc. I would recommend checking it out to get a thourough answer to your question. After death all believers go to be with the father, but not in the physical form, since this happens after Jesus' return. Forgive me, i don't have a Bible here at work so i can't give you any references.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
152. "One question on that..."
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

WHO THE HELL IS HANK AND WHY SHOULD I TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT?!?!
WHERE DOES HE GET HIS INFORMATION ON THE AFTERLIFE???
HOW DOES HE KNOW ABOUT THAT?!

Sounds to me like "Hi. This is my name. I think heaven will be like this...Just look at the Bible"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: I Have a Question"
In response to Reply # 7


          

>
>Ok!!!! When you first die,
>where does your soul go?

Responce: Absent from the body present with the Lord.
Remeber when Jesus was on the cross he said into your hands I give my spirit. Luke 23:30 What he was saying is that his spirit was returning to the Lord.

> As stated in Revelation,
>you can not enter into
>the kingdom of heaven unless
>your name is written in
>the book of life.

Responce: No, the book of life is eternal. The Lord already knows who will and will not enter heaven.

>That will not happen until
>Jesus returns. The second
>death is to be thrown
>into the lake of fire.
> So in the first
>death, where does your soul
>go. This is just
>my guess, maybe all the
>souls still walk the earth
>and that is why we
>have ghosts that haunt us.
> Just a thought.

Responce: No in the Bible it makes claim to a place named Sheol. If you look at Luke 16:19 this is a parable describing a rich man and a poor man, who both have died, one is with the Lord the other is in sheol. Some people refer to sheol as abrahams's bossom(saying there was a split in Sheol between believers and unbelievers dwell after the resurrection of Christ). This where the souls dwell until the ressurection of our body's.
>
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "The death process . . ."
In response to Reply # 7


          

Okay, here goes . . .

Based on whether or not you've accepted Christ, you will go to either heaven or hell. But there are two things that you must remember, particularly with hell. 1. Hell is temporary and 2. Not everyone will suffer the same in hell. Let me explain:

Hell is temporary:
Revelation 20:11-15 talks about the final "Great White Throne Judgment" Verse 12 has John observing the dead, both small and great. Now, there are a few different words for dead in the greek, and this one is the word Nekros, signifying a spiritual death and seperation from God (where we get teh english word Necromancy). These are in essence people that were in hell due to being seperated from Christ by not accepting him when they were alive. Verse 12 continues . . .
" . . . and the books were opened, and another book, which is the book of life and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in THE BOOKS, according to their works."
Verse 13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Verse 14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Verse 15: Amd whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Understand this, judgment comes from a greek word Krino, which is translated in this scripture, "to pass a sentence". In short, the works listed in the books will determine just how much a person will suffer when in the lake of fire. In laymens terms, get the imagery, hell is a holding cell while you await sentencing. Hell is cast into the lake and so are those that were their, but their suffering is based on how bad the things were they did in life. Make sense?

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "clarification"
In response to Reply # 27


          

>Okay, here goes . . .
>
>
>Based on whether or not you've
>accepted Christ, you will go
>to either heaven or hell.
>But there are two things
>that you must remember, particularly
>with hell. 1. Hell is
>temporary and 2. Not everyone
>will suffer the same in
>hell. Let me explain:

Responce: I agree with the second one, but not the first. Hell is eternal.(By the way christians can disagree on a topic but this does not mean we are divided). Are you saying the lake of fire is temperary or are you referring to sheol being temperary?
>
>Hell is temporary:
>Revelation 20:11-15 talks about the final
>"Great White Throne Judgment" Verse
>12 has John observing the
>dead, both small and great.
>Now, there are a few
>different words for dead in
>the greek, and this one
>is the word Nekros, signifying
>a spiritual death and seperation
>from God (where we get
>teh english word Necromancy). These
>are in essence people that
>were in hell due to
>being seperated from Christ
>by not accepting him when
>they were alive. Verse 12
>continues . . .
>" . . . and the
>books were opened, and another
>book, which is the book
>of life and the dead
>were judged out of those
>things that were written in
>THE BOOKS, according to their
>works."
>Verse 13: And the sea gave
>up the dead which were
>in it, and death and
>hell delivered up the dead
>that were in them: and
>they were judged every man
>according to their works.
>Verse 14: And death and hell
>were cast into the lake
>of fire. This is the
>second death.
>Verse 15: Amd whosoever was not
>found in the book of
>life was cast into the
>lake of fire.
>
>Understand this, judgment comes from a
>greek word Krino, which is
>translated in this scripture, "to
>pass a sentence". In short,
>the works listed in the
>books will determine just how
>much a person will suffer
>when in the lake of
>fire. In laymens terms, get
>the imagery, hell is a
>holding cell while you await
>sentencing.

Responce: But the holding cell is sheol. And this is temporary, but Gehanna the lake of fire is eternal. Now I might be confused as to which one your talking about, but the lake of fire is eternal. So give me some clarification on this before we discuss this topic.

Hell is cast into
>the lake and so are
>those that were their, but
>their suffering is based on
>how bad the things were
>they did in life. Make
>sense?
>

Responce: the term forever can mean a long time in some context Matt 25 but God cannot be temporal he is eternal.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "RE: clarification"
In response to Reply # 35


          

Based on the scripture reference, hell (sheol/hades in grk.) is not eternal. Death and Hell are cast into the lake of fire, which IS eternal (see Revelations 20:14). It's the second death . . . Seems like we're saying the same thing, just were unclear on what the other was saying.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "that's good"
In response to Reply # 53


          

>Based on the scripture reference, hell
>(sheol/hades in grk.) is not
>eternal. Death and Hell are
>cast into the lake of
>fire, which IS eternal (see
>Revelations 20:14). It's the second
>death . . . Seems
>like we're saying the same
>thing, just were unclear
>on what the other was
>saying.
>


Responce: Good, yeah I was about to respond, but then I realized that I might have read you wrong.

>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "if"
In response to Reply # 0


          

the text doesn't say so explicitly, then what?

(example....if it DOESN'T say incest took place, then are you allowed to infer that it didn't?)

just hypothetical.....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "RE: if"
In response to Reply # 11


          

The worst thing a person could do when studying scripture is jsut read words. Not saying that's what you do, but every word, sentence, and verse has structure, context, tone, hebrew/greek/aramaic word meanings of varying shade, and tenses. I'm simply saying, there are so many things that are said that aren't said. For example, in Luke 19:3, the Bible says that Zacchaeus "sought to see Jesus . . ." The tense of the statement is imperfect, which signifies a continuous past action that will have continuous results. that's opens up so much to that one scripture. You feel me knockin?

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:33 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "yes sir/ma'am"
In response to Reply # 28


          

which is why i asked

i'm wondering if this post is more an attempt to get answers to serious questions, or an exercise in testing the exegetical acumen of responders

similarly, i'm wondering if an answer is posed that the questioner doesn't agree with, or can find fault with, is that somehow supposed to be a reflection on the Book (or by extnsion the belief) itself.

on the other hand, apparently someone did put themself out there as the source for answers, or so the original post implies, so i guess this might very well fit in the "watch what you ask for, you just might get it" pile

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "Okay"
In response to Reply # 30


          

Just giving you an answer, what you do with it/believe is totally up to you. God bless . . .

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "My bad . . ."
In response to Reply # 30


          

I confused responses. My whole point is not to display my exegetical acumen, but just to say that there are deeper meanings and many factors involved in understanding scripture, that's all. So, if it says it in the book, i do believe it's truth, but it's not truth to me or applied truth until I understand it. I hope you understand what I'm saying, I'm not sure I said it right.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:52 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "don't take offense"
In response to Reply # 34


          

i was speaking more toward the very nature of this post and what it is getting at

no particular attack on anyone

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:53 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "and"
In response to Reply # 36


          

i agree with your last statement

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: yes sir/ma'am"
In response to Reply # 30


          

>which is why i asked
>
>i'm wondering if this post is
>more an attempt to get
>answers to serious questions, or
>an exercise in testing the
>exegetical acumen of responders
>
>similarly, i'm wondering if an answer
>is posed that the questioner
>doesn't agree with, or can
>find fault with, is that
>somehow supposed to be a
>reflection on the Book (or
>by extnsion the belief) itself.
>
>
>on the other hand, apparently someone
>did put themself out there
>as the source for answers,
>or so the original post
>implies, so i guess this
>might very well fit in
>the "watch what you ask
>for, you just might get
>it" pile

Responce: No, I did not put myself out there. On another post Solarus said that Christians run and hide from serious discussion dealing with our faith. I told him that I would not run or hide and to feel free to ask anything he wanted. I am an apologetic.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 11:05 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "as such"
In response to Reply # 38


          

>I am an apologetic.

you should understand when you're (potentially) being baited.

no disrespect. but when one has decided that you're wrong, and it doesn't matter WHAT you say, then at what point does your understanding of doctrine and your ability to relate it do any good beyond the sake of discussion?

remember the "knock at the door"? if someones heart/mind is set against opening it (and am i in no way implying this is the specific case) then no amount of "apology" is going to sway them. right?

and this is not said to preclude the discussion nor to retard the debates, but fundamentally, one should not lose sight of the goal -- which is to answer honest question and not to do the "intellectual" dance.

by all means...continue.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 05:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "read the initial post"
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

"This thread is meant as a "Bible study" of sorts. Because persons in the okaychristian community (especially osoclasi) have offered to answer any questions we may have about the "good book," I have decided to personally take them up on that offer. Anyone who has questions please feel free to ask. Since this is alot to ask of one or a few persons, I ask all of those with questions to base them specifically on Biblical verses, so the conversation will not be completely sujective to the opinion of one Christian. Also please provide the verse number, so the question can be answered expenditiously. Here is a link for an online Bible verse search: http://www.unboundbible.org/

Finally, I hope this can be an enlightened discussion with 100% less stuffiness and Christian-bashing. There is a time and place for everything and right now it isn't the time or PLACE for Christian-bashing. If you want to do that then go here:http://www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3054&forum=DCForumID1&omm=0

Thanks to everyone for their cooperation in advance and special gratitude goes to the okayapologetics in the okaychristian community who give up their precious time to answer our questions."


carry on...

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "heres a question"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Is there a such thing as free will in Christianity or is everything according to Gods will.????



https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:59 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "sorry Solarus"
In response to Reply # 18


          

forgot the guidlines.....

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 09:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 18


          

>Is there a such thing as
>free will in Christianity or
>is everything according to Gods
>will.????

Responce: It was God's will that humans had free will. God willed that humans would be free and have the opportunity to either except of to deny Him.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 09:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 21


          

If God knows your thoughts and actions before you do them.??
If God created a plan for your life before you are born??
How is that free will???

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 22


          

>If God knows your thoughts and
>actions before you do them.??
>
>If God created a plan for
>your life before you are
>born??
>How is that free will???

Responce:when the bible speaks of God creating a plan for our lives it also states that we are allowed not to follow those plans that God sets for our lives. In other words God wants us to choose him on our own, just because he knows the future does not mean that he programs our minds and will to act a certain way. He just knows what you will do it before hand and does not intefere.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
IllipticallyDefined

Fri Jun-22-01 07:56 PM

  
52. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 31


          

huh? so if im doomed to hell, and God knows im going to hell im doomed to hell, no ifs ands or buts, but i still have free will?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "yes, do you"
In response to Reply # 52


          

>huh? so if im doomed to
>hell, and God knows im
>going to hell im doomed
>to hell, no ifs ands
>or buts, but i still
>have free will?


Responce: But who said anything you being doomed, what you have to realize is that God does not send people to hell, people will hell, they choose it. I think I told you this before but heaven for an unbeliever would be worse than hell. Why? because they don't want to be there, they despise God, they don't want to live under his rule so God gives them their wish.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
IllipticallyDefined

Sat Jun-23-01 10:37 PM

  
75. "RE: yes, do you"
In response to Reply # 60


          

I don't despise God, i don't despise anything that he has created... now what? i can recieve my piece of heaven?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 08:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "Depends"
In response to Reply # 75


          

>I don't despise God, i don't
>despise anything that he has
>created... now what? i can
>recieve my piece of heaven?

Responce: What do you think about his Son.
>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
IllipticallyDefined

Sun Jun-24-01 06:39 PM

  
89. "RE: Depends"
In response to Reply # 77


          

well i don't deny Jesus... I think he was a man of God... i don't know deny goodness or love... but i deny slavery, and i dont want my free will taken away in heaven, nahmean?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
108. "RE: Depends"
In response to Reply # 89


          

>well i don't deny Jesus... I
>think he was a man
>of God... i don't know
>deny goodness or love... but
>i deny slavery, and i
>dont want my free will
>taken away in heaven, nahmean?
>

Responce: well here's how it goes, if you don't except the teachings of Jesus and make him lord of your life, then your in trouble. Here's why the bible makes it clear that we have all sinned, all sin deserves hell, if there were no Jesus we'd all go to hell, Jesus paid the price for our sins. If you do not except his message then you are saying that you don't want to be with him. the thing about free will in heaven is that the heaven that Christians talk about the desire to sin will be taken away we will want to be with God and have fellowship with him, he will take away our sins and we will no longer will to be any where else.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
IllipticallyDefined

Mon Jun-25-01 11:48 AM

  
120. "RE: Depends"
In response to Reply # 108


          

Of course I accept his message, if he was God like i want to strive to be like that too, but the important thing right now is... what exactly is heaven? I mean are we free to do what we want?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
134. "RE: Depends"
In response to Reply # 120


          

>Of course I accept his message,
>if he was God like
>i want to strive to
>be like that too, but
>the important thing right now
>is... what exactly is heaven?
>I mean are we free
>to do what we want?
>

Responce: The topic of heaven is a huge topic. But to try to sum it all up, if you read rev 21 you will see that God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth, and the if you read the whole thing you will see that God is going to dwell amonst men vs 3 " Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. So God will once again dwell with men as he didAdam did in the garden. Everything that we lost will be renewd. Will you be able to do what you want sure. But you have to realize that you won't have the desire to sin anymore, that decision is left here on earth. God give you enough time on earth to decide what road to travel. So back to the point if you read vs 27 it says that nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose name is written in the lamb of God. so in other words no evil will every exist in heaven God will do away with all evil and unjustice. And believe it or not that's the hope of the believer, that even though we might go through extreme suffering in this earth God will restore what was lost and return our fellowship with him. That even though we get sick ,lose relatives, go poor that does not matter because we march on and know that while things might not go well in this life time God will take care of us in the next. If you get a chance read ecclesiaties where Solomon is saying if this is all there is ( under the sun) then it's all meaningless.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
153. "I'll return to that later...."
In response to Reply # 134


  

          

Ecclesiastes that is...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Gyrofrog
Charter member
1529 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 07:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 31


          

>He just knows
>what you will do it
>before hand and does not
>intefere.

Rather than staking zillions of years on the outcome of 75 (maybe) years on Earth, why not just put us in Heaven to begin with?

--Joe C
"Gyrofrog"
Have sax, will woodshed
-----
http://www.gyrofrog.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
109. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 103


          

>>He just knows
>>what you will do it
>>before hand and does not
>>intefere.
>
>Rather than staking zillions of years
>on the outcome of 75
>(maybe) years on Earth, why
>not just put us in
>Heaven to begin with?
>
Responce: because genuine love is done by choice not by force.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
KOONTZILLA
Charter member
652 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 05:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
144. "RE: heres a question"
In response to Reply # 22


          

>If God knows your thoughts and
>actions before you do them.??
>
>If God created a plan for
>your life before you are
>born??
>How is that free will???

I THINK GOD KNOWS YOUR LIFE IF YOU FOLLOW HIS RULES. HE HAS A PATH HE WANTS EVERYONE TO FOLLOW, IF YOU FALL OFF THEN HE TRIES TO GUIDE YOU BACK.... AND IF YOU NEVER GET BACK THEN.....THATS WHEN YOU GO TO HELL.....I THINK

"WATCH IT MY N*GGAS THOUGH I'M ZONED, I'M GONE GET WIT YA, WITH THE REMAINS FROM THAT THANG THAT MALCOLM PALMED IN THE PICTURE. NEVA READ THE QURAN OR ISLAMIC SCRIPTURES, ONLY SOLMNS I READ WAS ON THE ARMS OF MY N*GGAS, TATOOED TIL I CARRY ON LIKE I'M NON-RELIGIOUS"- JAY-Z

"Niggas mad cause Ibrags about the cash I got, but I'm used to not havin alot, I'm from the gutter and ohh..."-Jay-Z

"Expensive shoes worn, Loui Viton see-through gone, CoChes, my face is like a coupon..."Jay-Z

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
kastfan

Fri Jun-22-01 09:16 AM

  
23. "Cain and his wife"
In response to Reply # 21


          

you're right that the creation story doesn't come out and say that adam was the "only" man, at least not in those words. However, teh creation story does tell us that Adam was teh first man and that he was created on the fifth day. It never mentions other people being created and i don't think we can assume that there were other people. It seems very logical that Cain married and sister and the population grew from there. The genetic makeup of that day was almost flawless so incest wouldn't have been a problem

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 10:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "The question . . ."
In response to Reply # 23


          

First, understand that Adam and Eve were not tangible until Genesis . God created male and female (created, Bara, to make something out of nothing) in Genesis 1:26, but he formed (Yatsar, form, fashion, devise) man in chapter two. The original creation was a prototype or mold for the fashioned man in Ch. 2. Now, as far as free will, I explained it on the "Christian Bashing" post. God knows all things, but hasn't experienced all things. Understand that man was created to have relationship and so that God could express himself and his love. Think in terms of relationships, what kind of relationship can two people really have if one is forced into all decisions and emotions? God wanted man to be with him based on his free will. As far a life goes, God has a perfect will for everyone's life, and all includes Him in the picture. However, it is up to man to follow it. For example, in Genesis 22, Abraham could've said no to God in sacrificing Isaac, but then their would've been consequences that probably would've altered history. But God is still God because he has prepared for every decision that you could possibly make. All roads are covered, but the decision that you will make he hasn't yet experienced, though he knows everyone that you could make. Now one person used the example of Jonah and how he chose to go against the will of God and teh fish came and handled business. That's a strong debate, but there's one problem, Though Jonah went into the belly of the fish for 3 days, he takes all of Chapter 2 to decide that he will do what God wants him to do. Now one may say, well in those conditions, who wouldn't do it. True, God will do things to somewhat "prompt" you to do his will, but even in the Jonah instance, the Bible says that the fish vomited Jonah upon the dry land, but it DOES NOT say that that dry land was Ninevah. It says that Jonah still had to put forth the effort to go to Ninevah, meaning , God still didn't force him to go and gave him a chance to do something else. Kapish?

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "r u an arab christian?"
In response to Reply # 32


          

>(created, Bara, to make
>something out of nothing

the word bara and the defin. you provided is similar to one of the 99 attributes of Allah: Al-Barii
(similiar meaning)

or is that the hebrew similitude of semetic languages?

.....And please remember, the next time you see one of these fake kufi wearing, bead toting peeps step to you and ask you whats the last book you read respond by saying...Brother/Sister, I am the last book, and you're just one of the chapters that I need to finish...
(c) naiea

Is it true he is not from the 19th Galaxy, but was released from the 19th precinct?! (c) Grand Royal about Dr. Malachi Z. York.

who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "RE: r u an arab christian?"
In response to Reply # 39


          

People are usually surprised at the similarities between Christians and Muslims and other faiths. The main difference falls in the person, role, and identity of Jesus.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

JESSEWA

Fri Jun-22-01 12:07 PM

  
41. "limiting Himself"
In response to Reply # 0


          

1)Why would our God limit himself to ONE book of absolute truth? Wouldnt He supply each culture, geographic area, etc with Many books of truth?

2)God is Love. Right?
Buddhism teaches Love. Right?
The spirit of God is within Buddhism. Right?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 12:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "RE: limiting Himself"
In response to Reply # 41


          

>1)Why would our God limit himself

>2)God is Love. Right?

isn't this limiting God?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
JESSEWA

Fri Jun-22-01 12:35 PM

  
43. "and"
In response to Reply # 42


          

yea, but it is not relevant to the question. as humans, it is impossible not to limit god, because do we really know his whole story? no.


The question is why our God would limit himself, Because it appears to me that the Christian God does.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "RE: and"
In response to Reply # 43


          

God is only limited based on the people that serve him. Is there God in Buddahism? Definately, and also in most other faiths. The area that seperates Christians and other religions is the Person of Jesus Christ and who you believe him to be.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 11:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "RE: Check your Inbox"
In response to Reply # 55


          

Peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 12:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "RE: limiting Himself"
In response to Reply # 41


          

I know this is a post on Christianity, but here is something from the Qur'an that talks about what you referred to.

010.047
YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
PICKTHAL: And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment) it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged.
SHAKIR: And every nation had a messenger; so when their messenger came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.

>Wouldnt He supply each
>culture, geographic area, etc with
>Many books of truth?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
lambda
Member since Aug 14th 2002
72 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:57 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "RE: limiting Himself"
In response to Reply # 41


          

If you say God should give every single group or area a revelation, what stops you from extending that to every single person? I mean, if Moses has the greatest level of prophecy in human history, doesn't that leave us all out of something?

Obviously, we would not have free will if such a thing happened. If you look at the experience of the Jews at Sinai, you would notice that the Jews immediately performed an act that would seem to be a denial of that revelation. In fact, it is said that the moment they committed the sin of the golden calf is exactly the same moment when God handed the tablets of the law to Moses.

When the Jews are placed back into their normal existence after the Sinai experience, they obviously have free will. Other nations, such as Amalek, come to make war with the Jews because they oppose what has happened. Although Christians have distorted the concept, you need to recognize the real meaning of "faith". Faith is staying with something that you once new to be 100% true, even when you are outside of the experience that made you realize that. If every group on earth was given the same sort of revelaton, nobody would have freewill, but as it stands now, everyone does.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

djrav
Charter member
989 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 01:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "My Question:"
In response to Reply # 0


          

This is a simple one...and one that my younger cousin asked me just last week:

In the Bible, the miracles surrounding Christ's birth are discussed. That is followed by a very brief mention of Christ's childhood, and how at the age of 12 he was have serious dicsussions with Rabbi's and priests and how everyone thought he was such a bright and brilliant child. (See: Luke 2:40-48)

Fast Forward: The next thing we hear about Christ is about things he was doing at the age of 30 or so. So my question is: where was Jesus during his youth? Why is there no mention of it in the Bible, since they even documented his birth and very early youth?

I have heard the argument that he was not doing anything special, and was just doing carpenter work with his father, but this argument doesn't stick very well since it says in the Bible that he was debating with Rabbi's at the age of 12. Why would be debating with them at 12, but then just quit for 18 years to just do carpenter work? Do these people believe that Jesus did nothing worth mentioning for 18 years?

Also: Question 2: (this is not my main question, but since I'm on the topic I thought I'd ask), what do you feel about people who believe that Jesus spent his youth as a nomadic ascetic, who traveled to the east and learned about eastern cultures? In India, there are many temples dedicated to him (and yes, Hindu temples too...Jesus is considered to be a great prophet, and even an incarnation of God by most Hindus). He's also believed to have traveled to Tibet, where they have documented evidence of a person of Jesus's discription coming to their land around Jesus's time perfoming miracles, etc. Is their documented evidence considered less relevant? These people will also point to the many similarities of things Jesus said and what Krishna said in the Gita. For example:
Gita verse:Gita verse 10:21 "I am the Self (ie.Eternal Self, God), O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings".

Bible verse: Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty"

I'm not saying I necessarily believe one way or another in regards to question 2, I am just throwing the question out there...since I've heard it many times...

Sorry this got a little long...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Fri Jun-22-01 08:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "My personal belief . . ."
In response to Reply # 45


          

>This is a simple one...and one
>that my younger cousin asked
>me just last week:
>
>In the Bible, the miracles surrounding
>Christ's birth are discussed.
>That is followed by a
>very brief mention of Christ's
>childhood, and how at the
>age of 12 he was
>have serious dicsussions with Rabbi's
>and priests and how everyone
>thought he was such a
>bright and brilliant child. (See:
>Luke 2:40-48)
>
>Fast Forward: The next thing we
>hear about Christ is about
>things he was doing at
>the age of 30 or
>so. So my question
>is: where was Jesus during
>his youth? Why is there
>no mention of it in
>the Bible, since they even
>documented his birth and very
>early youth?
>
>I have heard the argument that
>he was not doing anything
>special, and was just doing
>carpenter work with his father,
>but this argument doesn't stick
>very well since it says
>in the Bible that he
>was debating with Rabbi's at
>the age of 12.
>Why would be debating with
>them at 12, but
>then just quit for 18
>years to just do carpenter
>work? Do these people
>believe that Jesus did nothing
>worth mentioning for 18 years?

Response: Hopefully you can respect this answer, but the bible says that he was subject to his parents and increased in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and Man (Luke 2:52). The quick and dirty is this, as a youth, Jesus lacked the credibility needed to make his ministry effective because he was a kid, though he had the ability. Remember, people didn't know he was the Messiah at that time, so there was no basis of respect. As far as his travels, I'm not sure. But the "normal" things that he did for those 18 years prepared him for ministry, as many of his natural skills, including fishing helped him reach people (how did he reach Peter, John, and James?) That's about the most practical response I can give.

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 06:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "RE: My Question:"
In response to Reply # 45


          

>This is a simple one...and one
>that my younger cousin asked
>me just last week:
>
>In the Bible, the miracles surrounding
>Christ's birth are discussed.
>That is followed by a
>very brief mention of Christ's
>childhood, and how at the
>age of 12 he was
>have serious dicsussions with Rabbi's
>and priests and how everyone
>thought he was such a
>bright and brilliant child. (See:
>Luke 2:40-48)
>
>Fast Forward: The next thing we
>hear about Christ is about
>things he was doing at
>the age of 30 or
>so. So my question
>is: where was Jesus during
>his youth? Why is there
>no mention of it in
>the Bible, since they even
>documented his birth and very
>early youth?

Reponse: Alot of times when the authors of the gospels were trying to get a certain point or theme across. In other words they were trying to get to the point of the whole thing. Adressing there audience the best way they knew how, that's why one gospel might mention Jesus's geneology while others did not. It was a matter of convience and space.
>
>I have heard the argument that
>he was not doing anything
>special, and was just doing
>carpenter work with his father,
>but this argument doesn't stick
>very well since it says
>in the Bible that he
>was debating with Rabbi's at
>the age of 12.
>Why would be debating with
>them at 12, but
>then just quit for 18
>years to just do carpenter
>work? Do these people
>believe that Jesus did nothing
>worth mentioning for 18 years?

Responce: The scriptures make it clear that not even all of the miracles that Jesus did were written down, not knocking there importance just that the authors had something more important to talk about.
>
>
>Also: Question 2: (this is
>not my main question, but
>since I'm on the topic
>I thought I'd ask), what
>do you feel about people
>who believe that Jesus spent
>his youth as a nomadic
>ascetic, who traveled to the
>east and learned about eastern
>cultures? In India, there
>are many temples dedicated to
>him (and yes, Hindu temples
>too...Jesus is considered to be
>a great prophet, and even
>an incarnation of God by
>most Hindus). He's also believed
>to have traveled to Tibet,
>where they have documented evidence
>of a person of Jesus's
>discription coming to their land
>around Jesus's time perfoming miracles,
>etc. Is their documented
>evidence considered less relevant?
>These people will also point
>to the many similarities of
>things Jesus said and what
>Krishna said in the Gita.
>For example:
>Gita verse:Gita verse 10:21 "I am
>the Self (ie.Eternal Self, God),
>O Gudakesa, seated in the
>hearts of all creatures. I
>am the beginning, the middle,
>and the end of all
>beings".
>
>Bible verse: Revelation 1:8 "I am
>Alpha and Omega, the beginning
>and the ending, saith the
>Lord, which is, and which
>was, and which is to
>come, the Almighty"
>
>I'm not saying I necessarily believe
>one way or another in
>regards to question 2, I
>am just throwing the question
>out there...since I've heard it
>many times...
>
>Sorry this got a little long...

Responce: No prob, there are a lot of things that says that Jesus went to india, then others say that Jesus went through the egyptian mystery system, some say that he even went to France. I at one time called a radio show and talk to Dr. Gary Habermaus and ask the same question that you mentioned and what he said was if Jesus really had gone through those different mystery system or whatever howcome there is no reflection of those teaching in his writings during the gospels. In other words Christ does not reflect a person who had been through any of those religious systems. Also if you look at the teachings of Kirshna vs Christ you will see the difference in the Bhagavad-Gita there is a long dialogue that occurs between Krishna and his friend and disciple Arjuna. Arjuna tells Kirshna of his reluctance to fight against a people among whom he has many friends. Krishna tells Arjuna that he must detach himself form the fruit of his actions, no matter what they are. Thus states Kirshna: He whose mind dwells Beyond attachment, Untainded by ego, No act shall bind him with any bond: Though he slay these thousands He is no slayer. Krishna explains to Arjuna that this state of union with Brahman can be achieved by 1) Raga yoga( a path of union through meditation and mind control) 2) Karma yoga((the path of union through work) 3)Jnana yoga(the path of union through knowledge) 4)Bhakti yoga(the path of union through love and devotion) Prabhavananda, Spritual Heritage, 98,123-29.By any path one follows must be accompanied by unnattachment or indifference to any action.Only then will good and evil be tranceneded and union with Brahman attainded. Also it should be noted that Krishna is only a temporary incarnation. Also he is not an incatnation of a monotheistic God but a pantheistic God.
>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
djrav
Charter member
989 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 08:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "RE: My Question:"
In response to Reply # 70


          


>Responce: No prob, there are a
>lot of things that says
>that Jesus went to india,
>then others say that Jesus
>went through the egyptian mystery
>system, some say that he
>even went to France. I
>at one time called a
>radio show and talk to
>Dr. Gary Habermaus and ask
>the same question that you
>mentioned and what he said
>was if Jesus really had
>gone through those different mystery
>system or whatever howcome there
>is no reflection of those
>teaching in his writings during
>the gospels.

Actually, many people do think they are reflected in his teachings in the Gospels...most Christians won't accept it, but much of what Christ said was not new...what I mean is, it may have been new to his people, but much of what he said had also been said in other parts of the world by other people...but then I no you will not accept this, even though it is documented (just as Jesus's life and teachings are).

In other words
>Christ does not reflect a
>person who had been through
>any of those religious systems.

Actually, he is extremely similar to many people from other systems...for example, since I used Krishna before, I will use him again: Both were of a virgin birth, both their names mean the same thing (Christ comes from the Greek Cristos, and the word Krishna in Greek means the same as cristos. Christ in Sanskrit is Krista, and has the same meaning as Krishna), both were considered the son of God, both's coming were foretold, both were born in unusual places, Christ was a shepherd, Krishna was a cowherd, both's teachings emphasised love and peace, etc, etc....but that's been posted here already...I know we were initially talking about Christ's teachings, but you were wrong about what you've just posted above.


>Also if you look at
>the teachings of Kirshna vs
>Christ you will see the
>difference in the Bhagavad-Gita there
>is a long dialogue
>that occurs between Krishna and
>his friend and disciple Arjuna.
>Arjuna tells Kirshna of his
>reluctance to fight against a
>people among whom he has
>many friends. Krishna tells Arjuna
>that he must detach himself
>form the fruit of his
>actions, no matter what they
>are. Thus states Kirshna: He
>whose mind dwells Beyond attachment,
>Untainded by ego, No act
>shall bind him with any
>bond: Though he slay these
>thousands He is no slayer.
>Krishna explains to Arjuna that
>this state of union with
>Brahman can be achieved by
>1) Raga yoga( a path
>of union through meditation and
>mind control) 2) Karma yoga((the
>path of union through work)
>3)Jnana yoga(the path of union
>through knowledge) 4)Bhakti yoga(the path
>of union through love and
>devotion) Prabhavananda, Spritual Heritage, 98,123-29.By
>any path one follows must
>be accompanied by unnattachment or
>indifference to any action.Only then
>will good and evil be
>tranceneded and union with Brahman
>attainded.

I do not know your point of saying this? Are you trying to show me that you know the Gita? Are you trying to show the differences between Christianity and Hinduism? I never said that Christ was necessarily teaching what Krishna taught word for word...I was just saying he may have been INFLUENCED by him.

Also it should be
>noted that Krishna is only
>a temporary incarnation. Also he
>is not an incatnation of
>a monotheistic God but a
>pantheistic God.
>>

Are you sure? That may your perception do to your Christian bias. Krishna is only a temporary incarnation?? Depending on what sect you speak to, you may get varying answers to this. Incarnation of a panthesistic God??

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 08:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "Biased?"
In response to Reply # 73


          

>
>Actually, many people do think they
>are reflected in his teachings
>in the Gospels...most Christians won't
>accept it, but much of
>what Christ said was not
>new...what I mean is, it
>may have been new to
>his people, but much of
>what he said had also
>been said in other parts
>of the world by other
>people...but then I no you
>will not accept this, even
>though it is documented (just
>as Jesus's life and teachings
>are).
>

Responce: There have been many sayings of Christ that are very similar to those of the rest of the world, but what I was saying is that the teachings of those religions have no bearing on what he said in the gospels. Actually, the way Jesus taught salvation is new and very unique a concept foriegn to other religions.

>Actually, he is extremely similar to
>many people from other systems...for
>example, since I used Krishna
>before, I will use him
>again: Both were of
>a virgin birth, both their
>names mean the same thing
>(Christ comes from the Greek
>Cristos, and the word Krishna
>in Greek means the same
>as cristos. Christ in
>Sanskrit is Krista, and has
>the same meaning as Krishna),
>both were considered the son
>of God, both's coming were
>foretold, both were born in
>unusual places, Christ was a
>shepherd, Krishna was a cowherd,
>both's teachings emphasised love and
>peace, etc, etc....but that's been
>posted here already...I know we
>were initially talking about Christ's
>teachings, but you were wrong
>about what you've just posted
>above.

Responce: I'll grant you some of these similarities but others I will challege you on. The virgin birth I kind of take your side but may I ask was Krishna's prophesied 700 years before his birth (Isiah 7:14)? Also was his place of birth prophesised like Jesus was(Micah 5:2), how bout his ancestory (Gen 12:2-3;cf 22:18)? How about what tribe he will come from (Gen 49:10)? They might have taught love,peace etc, but Christ talked about the coming of hell, when he will return, he's own resurrection, and the destruction of Jeruselem. Did any of Krishna prophesies come true? Did Krishna come to die for our sins and restore out union with God? I'm curious how do you explain 119 prophesis that were all fufilled by one human? Also the whole issue about Christ name, that's no big deal. The term messiah"the lords anoited" is a hebrew word "masiah" usually refers to kings, who were " the Lord's anointed"(1 Sam 24:6). It was even given to Cyrus in the book of Isiah. But by the time of the New Testament it meant something different the Messiah was God's chosen instrument who would come one day to establish God's kingdom and to rule in power thats who Jesus was.
>
>
>I do not know your point
>of saying this? Are
>you trying to show me
>that you know the Gita?

Responce: You brought up the similarities, I'm showing you the differences.

> Are you trying to
>show the differences between Christianity
>and Hinduism?

Responce: Bingo

I never
>said that Christ was necessarily
>teaching what Krishna taught word
>for word...I was just saying
>he may have been INFLUENCED
>by him.
>
>Are you sure? That may
>your perception do to your
>Christian bias. Krishna is
>only a temporary incarnation?? Depending
>on what sect you speak
>to, you may get varying
>answers to this. Incarnation
>of a panthesistic God??

Responce: Actually I'm quite sure, oh yeah thanks for calling me bias( I'm glad we don't have to resort to name calling on this site). Do you know what I mean by temporary incarnation and panthesistic?


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
djrav
Charter member
989 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 04:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "RE: Biased?"
In response to Reply # 76


          

>>Actually, many people do think they
>>are reflected in his teachings
>>in the Gospels...most Christians won't
>>accept it, but much of
>>what Christ said was not
>>new...what I mean is, it
>>may have been new to
>>his people, but much of
>>what he said had also
>>been said in other parts
>>of the world by other
>>people...but then I no you
>>will not accept this, even
>>though it is documented (just
>>as Jesus's life and teachings
>>are).
>>
>
>Responce: There have been many sayings
>of Christ that are very
>similar to those of the
>rest of the world, but
>what I was saying is
>that the teachings of those
>religions have no bearing on
>what he said in the
>gospels. Actually, the way Jesus
>taught salvation is new and
>very unique a concept foriegn
>to other religions.


I never said that Jesus didn't bring ANYTHING new, I know he did, I said much of what he said had already been said in other places. I am not trying to discredit Jesus's relevance to religion and spirituality.


>I ask was Krishna's prophesied
>700 years before his birth
>(Isiah 7:14)?


Yes, Krishna's birth was prophesised in early Vedic literature.
Many hundred years before he came.

Also was his
>place of birth prophesised like
>Jesus was(Micah 5:2), how bout
>his ancestory (Gen 12:2-3;cf 22:18)?

No it wasn't, but if you know the story of the Mahabarat, they discuss how a goddess came into a vision to his mother years before and told her that she would bear a son that would be God. This was when Krishnas parents were jailed for life. His first 7 siblings were murdered because of this, since Kamsa feared that they were the child (ie. God child) sent to kill him. When Krishna was born, his father took him out while all the guards were put under a spell and fell asleep.


>How about what tribe he
>will come from (Gen 49:10)?

No, maybe not....but their were many things about Krishna that were prophesised that were relevant to Hindu/Indian culture. For example, his gotra, sutra, and and lineage were prophesised...so in cultural terms, yes his tribe was prophesised since they predicted what lineage of saints he would be born under.


>They might have taught love,peace
>etc, but Christ talked about
>the coming of hell,

Yes, all of Krishnas prophesis came true as well....to a Hindu, you must realize, Krishna is just as important as Jesus is to Christianity. Krishna did speak about hell actually...in fact he was one of the first deities to do so. When he was conversing with Arjuna, he explianed the concept of heaven and hell to him explicitly...in fact, after the Mahabarth war (where the Gita discussion between Krishna and Arjuna took place) the Pandavas went to heaven, but since one of the brothers had used wrong means in the war to trick the Kauravas, one of them was sent to hell. When the Pandavas got to heaven, one of the Kauravas came to hug them...they could not understand why their enemy was accepted into heaven, and therefore chose to go to hell to live with their brother (who had been sent there earlier). Anyways, the concept of Heaven/Hell had been discussed by Krishna.


>when
>he will return,

Krishna did say he would return...as the Kalki avatar.

>he's own
>resurrection,

Krishna did not resurrect, so not relevant. Realize that resurection may be proof for Christians, but in the Hindu religion, ressurection is not proof of being an avatar. Many Hindu saints in the Himalayas are known to leave their bodies on command and return if necessary days, weeks, etc later...but then I know you think this all not true...but realize to HINDUS it is.

and the destruction of
>Jeruselem.

No, you got me there, Krishna did not prophisize this.


Did any of Krishna
>prophesies come true?

Yes, all of them.


Did Krishna
>come to die for our
>sins and restore out union
>with God?

No, but that was not his purpose. He came for a different purpose...Hindus have a much different concept of life and death than Christians (ex. reincarnation, etc). Krishna could not come to die for man's sins since this concept is not a part of Hinduism.

I'm curious how
>do you explain 119 prophesis
>that were all fufilled by
>one human?

I NEVER SAID THAT JESUS WASN'T GOD. Understand that I am not Christian so I don't necessarily believe that if Jesus is God, than all other prophets, avatars, etc are not. Just because I am saying that Krishna had relevance to the world, it doesn't mean I don't think Jesus is God. Its not a competition to me....and by the way, many of the Dasha Avatars fulfilled hundreds of prophesies.


Also the whole
>issue about Christ name, that's
>no big deal.

I wasn't trying to make it a big deal, i was just giving examples of similarities, that's all.


>>Are you sure? That may
>>your perception do to your
>>Christian bias. Krishna is
>>only a temporary incarnation?? Depending
>>on what sect you speak
>>to, you may get varying
>>answers to this. Incarnation
>>of a panthesistic God??
>
>Responce: Actually I'm quite sure,

If you are sure that Krishna is a temporary incarnation, then you are obviously biased by your believes. Do you really know the relevance of Krishna to Hindus? I don't mean have you read a book by a Christian missionary group who have been to India...I mean, do you realize the importance of Krishna to some sects of Hinduism?? If so, how? Have you ever discussed Krishna with a Hindu priest? Or any Hindu? They do not believe he is temporary at all. You do not understand the Hindu concept of non-dualism, or you would understand this fact better.


>oh
>yeah thanks for calling me
>bias( I'm glad we don't
>have to resort to name
>calling on this site).

Calling you bias is calling you a name?? I wasn't insulting you, but in my opinion you were being biased by your Christian background. I didn't realize calling someone "biased" was an insult.

Do
>you know what I mean
>by temporary incarnation and panthesistic?
>

If you are thinking from a Christian/Western point of view, then yes, Krishna is a temporary incarnation...but realize HINDUS DO NOT THINK THIS. The Hindu concept of non-dualism takes them completely away from the idea of being "temporary" when it comes to Brahman. And yes Krishna is a panthesistic God from the western perspective, but although God is universal (ie. Brahman) he is not considered impersonal. In fact, God is specifically thought to be "a person"....read the Purshasooktam ("The Universal Person") from the Upanishads.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
106. "RE: Biased?"
In response to Reply # 83


          



>
>
>I never said that Jesus didn't
>bring ANYTHING new, I know
>he did, I said much
>of what he said had
>already been said in other
>places. I am not
>trying to discredit Jesus's relevance
>to religion and spirituality.

Responce: Oh my bad I thought you were trying to debate the differences between Christ vs Khirhna, I did'nt realize that you were just stating a point.
>
>
>>I ask was Krishna's prophesied
>>700 years before his birth
>>(Isiah 7:14)?
>
>
>Yes, Krishna's birth was prophesised in
>early Vedic literature.
>Many hundred years before he came.

Responce: If you have time I would like to see the prophesis that concearned his birth. Or just tell me in which literature I can find it.
>
>
>
>
>No it wasn't, but if you
>know the story of the
>Mahabarat, they discuss how a
>goddess came into a vision
>to his mother years before
>and told her that she
>would bear a son that
>would be God. This
>was when Krishnas parents were
>jailed for life. His
>first 7 siblings were murdered
>because of this, since Kamsa
>feared that they were the
>child (ie. God child) sent
>to kill him. When Krishna
>was born, his father took
>him out while all the
>guards were put under a
>spell and fell asleep.

Responce: The point that I was trying to make is that the prohesis that concearned Jesus, were truly divine and not human in origin, some people state that Jesus mearly tried to imitate the prophesis in the Old Testament and was not the one they were talking about.
>
>

>
>No, maybe not....but their were many
>things about Krishna that were
>prophesised that were relevant to
>Hindu/Indian culture. For example,
>his gotra, sutra, and and
>lineage were prophesised...so in cultural
>terms, yes his tribe was
>prophesised since they predicted what
>lineage of saints he would
>be born under.
>
Responce: I would like to see thsi prophesy as well and compare it, you have to remeber Jesus lineage and birth were foretold throughout history by more than one prophet.
>
>>They might have taught love,peace
>>etc, but Christ talked about
>>the coming of hell,
>
>Yes, all of Krishnas prophesis came
>true as well....to a Hindu,
>you must realize, Krishna is
>just as important as Jesus
>is to Christianity. Krishna
>did speak about hell actually...in
>fact he was one of
>the first deities to do
>so. When he was
>conversing with Arjuna, he explianed
>the concept of heaven and
>hell to him explicitly...in fact,
>after the Mahabarth war (where
>the Gita discussion between Krishna
>and Arjuna took place) the
>Pandavas went to heaven, but
>since one of the brothers
>had used wrong means in
>the war to trick the
>Kauravas, one of them was
>sent to hell. When
>the Pandavas got to heaven,
>one of the Kauravas came
>to hug them...they could not
>understand why their enemy was
>accepted into heaven, and
>therefore chose to go to
>hell to live with their
>brother (who had been sent
>there earlier). Anyways, the
>concept of Heaven/Hell had been
>discussed by Krishna.

Responce: Your right, I completely over looked that one, a better argument that I should have said was that the hell that Krishna preached vs the hell of Christianity are different.
>
>
>>when
>>he will return,
>
>Krishna did say he would return...as
>the Kalki avatar.
>
>>he's own
>>resurrection,
>
>Krishna did not resurrect, so not
>relevant. Realize that resurection
>may be proof for Christians,
>but in the Hindu religion,
>ressurection is not proof of
>being an avatar. Many
>Hindu saints in the Himalayas
>are known to leave their
>bodies on command and return
>if necessary days, weeks, etc
>later...but then I know you
>think this all not true...but
>realize to HINDUS it is.

Responce: But, this is were we split. You said that Hindus believe this to be true making it kind of subjective( now correct me if I am reading to much into your wording) but Christians say that Christ resurrection was a true event in history meaning whether we believe it or not it happened.
>
>
>and the destruction of
>>Jeruselem.
>
>No, you got me there, Krishna
>did not prophisize this.
>
>
>Did any of Krishna
>>prophesies come true?
>
>Yes, all of them.

Responce: If you have time I would like for you to point me out some of them, and compare them to the prophesis in Isiah and Jeremiah if you want to.
>
>
> Did Krishna
>>come to die for our
>>sins and restore out union
>>with God?
>
>No, but that was not his
>purpose. He came for
>a different purpose...Hindus have a
>much different concept of life
>and death than Christians (ex.
>reincarnation, etc). Krishna could
>not come to die for
>man's sins since this concept
>is not a part of
>Hinduism.

Responce: all this stems from the fact that I thought you were trying to debate instead of realizing you were just stating things.
>
> I'm curious how
>>do you explain 119 prophesis
>>that were all fufilled by
>>one human?
>
>I NEVER SAID THAT JESUS WASN'T
>GOD. Understand that I
>am not Christian so I
>don't necessarily believe that if
>Jesus is God, than all
>other prophets, avatars, etc are
>not. Just because I
>am saying that Krishna had
>relevance to the world, it
>doesn't mean I don't think
>Jesus is God. Its
>not a competition to me....and
>by the way, many of
>the Dasha Avatars fulfilled hundreds
>of prophesies.

Responce; Good deal, I miss read you. I thought you were debating that fact.
>
>
>Also the whole
>>issue about Christ name, that's
>>no big deal.
>
>I wasn't trying to make it
>a big deal, i was
>just giving examples of similarities,
>that's all.

Responce: Sure OK
>
>
>>>Are you sure? That may
>>>your perception do to your
>>>Christian bias. Krishna is
>>>only a temporary incarnation?? Depending
>>>on what sect you speak
>>>to, you may get varying
>>>answers to this. Incarnation
>>>of a panthesistic God??
>>
>>Responce: Actually I'm quite sure,
>
>If you are sure that Krishna
>is a temporary incarnation, then
>you are obviously biased by
>your believes. Do you
>really know the relevance of
>Krishna to Hindus? I
>don't mean have you read
>a book by a Christian
>missionary group who have been
>to India...I mean, do you
>realize the importance of Krishna
>to some sects of Hinduism??
>If so, how? Have
>you ever discussed Krishna with
>a Hindu priest? Or
>any Hindu? They do
>not believe he is temporary
>at all. You do
>not understand the Hindu concept
>of non-dualism, or you would
>understand this fact better.
>

Responce: Actually, what your saying is kind of spaced out, you said do I realize the importance of Krishna in some sects. Well point me out to some of those sects at least give me some names background or something then I can answer you. Also what I mean by temporary incarnation is that Christians say that Christ is forever in the incarnation even after he ascended to heaven. Hindus do not believe that Krishna is, at least not the ones I have talked to in the past, but if you got a disagreement cool give me verses and stuff and all that.
>
>>oh
>>yeah thanks for calling me
>>bias( I'm glad we don't
>>have to resort to name
>>calling on this site).
>
>Calling you bias is calling you
>a name?? I wasn't
>insulting you, but in my
>opinion you were being biased
>by your Christian background.
>I didn't realize calling someone
>"biased" was an insult.
>

Responce: No offense.
> Do
>>you know what I mean
>>by temporary incarnation and panthesistic?
>>
>
>If you are thinking from a
>Christian/Western point of view, then
>yes, Krishna is a temporary
>incarnation...but realize HINDUS DO NOT
>THINK THIS. The Hindu
>concept of non-dualism takes them
>completely away from the idea
>of being "temporary" when it
>comes to Brahman. And
>yes Krishna is a panthesistic
>God from the western perspective,
>but although God is universal
>(ie. Brahman) he is not
>considered impersonal. In fact,
>God is specifically thought to
>be "a person"....read the Purshasooktam
>("The Universal Person") from the
>Upanishads.

Responce: Good answer, hope you write me back peace


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
djrav
Charter member
989 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 07:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
160. "Ok."
In response to Reply # 106


          

>>Yes, Krishna's birth was prophesised in
>>early Vedic literature.
>>Many hundred years before he came.
>
>Responce: If you have time I
>would like to see the
>prophesis that concearned his birth.
>Or just tell me in
>which literature I can find
>it.


man..its been a few years since I did this reading..I think its the Brahma Sutras. But even in the Mahabartha it talks about how he was prophesised. I cannot remember the exact story..but Vishnu had given a vision to Sage Vyasa (?) that he would come down in the clan of Yadava to defeat the evil ruling power and restore peace to the land, and Vyasa had written it. Also note, you may claim that if it is prophesised only to one priest it is somehow less valid. I have 2 answers for that: first of all, it was prophesised to more than one person, but the names are slipping me right now (been studying stats for 3 days and my brain isn't all her ) and secondly, in Indian tradition, priests are given a lot more respect than Christians give their priests. I don't mean respect in the sense you may think, I mean that Hindu priests were seen as seers, or Godmen. They spent much more time preparing for priesthood (ie. most spend a minimum of 25-35 years learning before they are initiated into swamihood).



>Responce: The point that I was
>trying to make is that
>the prohesis that concearned Jesus,
>were truly divine and not
>human in origin, some people
>state that Jesus mearly tried
>to imitate the prophesis in
>the Old Testament and was
>not the one they were
>talking about.


I hope you are just making a point hee about Christianity and not about Hinduism...if you are saying that the prophesis concerning Krishna were human in origin and not truly divine, then I will respond to this further....but first explain how Jesus's were truly divine and Krishna's were not?? That is, if that is what you were trying to say.


>Responce: I would like to see
>thsi prophesy as well and
>compare it, you have to
>remeber Jesus lineage and birth
>were foretold throughout history by
>more than one prophet.

In the Mahabaratha, Krishna was pre-prophesised to be born a Yadava, and that is why the King (ie. the evil King Kamsa) jailed his own sister and killed all her children...since she was the same blood line and might therefore be the bearer of his killer (which she eventually was). Not sure where else it was right now...but all the Dasha avatars were pre-prophesised in the Brahma sutras, and in the Vedas. Vishnu explicitly said when he would come down (which yuga, or cyclical period), where he would be born, and for what purpose each time he came. All of this was told to Vyasa and other priests (who's names escape me right now...Valmiki(?)...I'll have to get back to you with reference #'s).


>Responce: Your right, I completely over
>looked that one, a better
>argument that I should have
>said was that the hell
>that Krishna preached vs the
>hell of Christianity are different.

Fine...but that is by your perception, some see little difference.


>>Krishna did not resurrect, so not
>>relevant. Realize that resurection
>>may be proof for Christians,
>>but in the Hindu religion,
>>ressurection is not proof of
>>being an avatar. Many
>>Hindu saints in the Himalayas
>>are known to leave their
>>bodies on command and return
>>if necessary days, weeks, etc
>>later...but then I know you
>>think this all not true...but
>>realize to HINDUS it is.
>
>Responce: But, this is were we
>split. You said that Hindus
>believe this to be true
>making it kind of subjective(
>now correct me if I
>am reading to much into
>your wording) but Christians say
>that Christ resurrection was a
>true event in history meaning
>whether we believe it or
>not it happened.

Oh my, I am really questioning the purpose of this now! Are you serious? What you said right here is proof for the "being bias" comment I made!

Ok, when I said that "Hindus believe that this is true" you claim that this is being subjective. But when you say Christians believe Christ's ressurection was a true historical event, you believe this is objective??? Let me explain this to you, when I said Hindus believe its true, I mean that Hindus believe that KRISHNA'S LIFE WAS TRUE HISTORICAL FACT, WHETHER WE BELIEVE IT OR NOT. The only reason I said "Hindus believe this" is because since you are Christian, I knew you wouldn't believe it. Hindus are also objective in this belief in Krishna (ie. they believe that whether or not anyone believes it, he really lived and performed all his miracles).

Your logic here is questionable. By your logic I could also claim that Christians are being subjective in believing in Jesus ressurected, since, althought they believe it to be a true historical fact, only Christians believe it...right? Re-read what you just wrote and tell me how your logic is right!


>>Yes, all of them.
>
>Responce: If you have time I
>would like for you to
>point me out some of
>them, and compare them to
>the prophesis in Isiah and
>Jeremiah if you want to.
>

I don't understand you at all...a few posts ago (or maybe it was in another thread, can't remember) you were explaining that you were "qualified" to have such discussions and you even spent a paragraph explaining the Gita to me...and now you are asking me to point out where the proof is? I thought you read the Gita (or so was the impression I received from you post explaining it to me).

The proof is in the Gita! There is also other proof of his miriacles, (Mahabartha, Bhagavad Vahini) but right in the Gita Krishna performs a miracle when he shows Arjuna his cosmic (universal) form. It is in fact, a major part of the story...you ask questions like this, I assume, becuase you believe that the Gita is a "religious" book and you want something more "objective" right? But when anyone asks for proof of Christ's miracles, the Bible is quoted! How is the Bible more of a valid source of objectivity than other scriptures of other lands? Especially considering that Sanskrit is one of the oldest written languages known, and many western written languages are based on much of its structure.


>>No, but that was not his
>>purpose. He came for
>>a different purpose...Hindus have a
>>much different concept of life
>>and death than Christians (ex.
>>reincarnation, etc). Krishna could
>>not come to die for
>>man's sins since this concept
>>is not a part of
>>Hinduism.
>
>Responce: all this stems from the
>fact that I thought you
>were trying to debate instead
>of realizing you were just
>stating things.


Actually, to tell you the truth, I don't know how you thought I was debating anything...I explicitly stated that I was just STATING things...I think you may be thinking that "the best defense is a good offense"...or something...


>>Also the whole
>>>issue about Christ name, that's
>>>no big deal.
>>
>>I wasn't trying to make it
>>a big deal, i was
>>just giving examples of similarities,
>>that's all.
>
>Responce: Sure OK


What does this mean? Do you really mean ok? I can't tell by the capitals...but in case you are trying to be sarcastic...I know that the name thing was a weak comparison, I was just making statements to show similarities among cultures, etc.


>>>>Are you sure? That may
>>>>your perception do to your
>>>>Christian bias. Krishna is
>>>>only a temporary incarnation?? Depending
>>>>on what sect you speak
>>>>to, you may get varying
>>>>answers to this. Incarnation
>>>>of a panthesistic God??
>>>
>>>Responce: Actually I'm quite sure,
>>
>>If you are sure that Krishna
>>is a temporary incarnation, then
>>you are obviously biased by
>>your believes. Do you
>>really know the relevance of
>>Krishna to Hindus? I
>>don't mean have you read
>>a book by a Christian
>>missionary group who have been
>>to India...I mean, do you
>>realize the importance of Krishna
>>to some sects of Hinduism??
>>If so, how? Have
>>you ever discussed Krishna with
>>a Hindu priest? Or
>>any Hindu? They do
>>not believe he is temporary
>>at all. You do
>>not understand the Hindu concept
>>of non-dualism, or you would
>>understand this fact better.
>>
>
>Responce: Actually, what your saying is
>kind of spaced out,



Don't understand "spaced out"?


>you
>said do I realize the
>importance of Krishna in some
>sects. Well point me out
>to some of those sects
>at least give me some
>names background or something then
>I can answer you.

In many parts of India, especially the south, villages usually tend to have a particular diety that they exclusively worship. In some places, Krishna is exclusively worshipped as God...I think they are called Krishnavites, or something to that affect...Shiva also has exclusive followers called Shivites.

On the same note, the fact that the "Hare-Krishna" movement arose shows the popularity of the Krishna deity....now I know you are going to make some cult comment or joke, but I am merely pointing out that Krishna is very important to Hinduism, and a very popular form to worship....so much so that a separate system developed around him (ie. Hare Krishnas). Also note, when I say popular, I don't mean in the sense you may think, I mean that he's a very commonly known form of God.

>Also
>what I mean by temporary
>incarnation is that Christians say
>that Christ is forever in
>the incarnation even after he
>ascended to heaven.

That may be so, but realise that to Christianity this is important, but in Hinduism it is not! Also, the term "temporary" (as I explained below) does not have the same force it does in Sanskrit...what i mean is, Hindus do not believe in a temporary state of God even though they do believe in dieties...its hard to explain for me, but its a concept called non-dualism (and note, the concept is not called "Everything is one" but "non-dualism"...that is for a reason! Think about it a bit and you might grasp what I am trying to say).


>Hindus do
>not believe that Krishna is,
>at least not the ones
>I have talked to in
>the past, but if you
>got a disagreement cool give
>me verses and stuff and
>all that.

Well, people you talked to who said this are correct...in a sense. He is temporary in the Western/Christian perspective (ie. no longer in the form of Krishna) but they still believe that form of Krishna exists...even today! This is a difficult concept...

As for verses...well...I don't have a Gita with me now...but check the chapters on "transcendental knowledge" and "Dhyana yoga" and also the chapter discussing having knowledge of the absolute. I will have to get back to you on the verses...


>>Calling you bias is calling you
>>a name?? I wasn't
>>insulting you, but in my
>>opinion you were being biased
>>by your Christian background.
>>I didn't realize calling someone
>>"biased" was an insult.
>>
>
>Responce: No offense.


Don't understand this response?


Also, see post 91 (I think) in the "Christians Pro-Death Penalty" thread...in case you didn't see it yet.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 06:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
183. "RE: Ok."
In response to Reply # 160


          

>
>
>man..its been a few years since
>I did this reading..I think
>its the Brahma Sutras.

Responce : OK I'll wait.

>But even in the Mahabartha
>it talks about how he
>was prophesised. I cannot
>remember the exact story..but Vishnu
>had given a vision to
>Sage Vyasa (?) that he
>would come down in the
>clan of Yadava to defeat
>the evil ruling power and
>restore peace to the land,
>and Vyasa had written it.

Response: Ok, now explain how Krishna fufilled this prophesy.
when you have time. You know what I mean?

>Also note, you may claim
>that if it is prophesised
>only to one priest it
>is somehow less valid.
>I have 2 answers for
>that: first of all, it
>was prophesised to more than
>one person, but the names
>are slipping me right now
>(been studying stats for 3
>days and my brain isn't
>all her )

Response: No prob, I'll chill.

and secondly, in
>Indian tradition, priests are given
>a lot more respect than
>Christians give their priests.
>I don't mean respect in
>the sense you may think,
>I mean that Hindu priests
>were seen as seers, or
>Godmen. They spent much
>more time preparing for priesthood
>(ie. most spend a minimum
>of 25-35 years learning before
>they are initiated into swamihood).

Response: But if you look at the prophesis of the Bible I think you'd be shocked at the level of detail inwhich they prophesied, like where he was born ( and actually naming the city) when he would die(Daniel's seventy weeks)to the day. The prophet Isiah named the king of bablylon 75 years before hand and said he would release the Jews, Jeramiah foretold exactly how many years the Jews would be in exile. Ok big deal right, where here is the deal if you go outside the bible and compare it with history then you see that these men were prophets of God. It's one thing to predict a mans death its another to predict that he would be cruxified when cruxifiction had not been invented yet.
>
>
>
>
>I hope you are just making
>a point hee about Christianity
>and not about Hinduism...if you
>are saying that the prophesis
>concerning Krishna were human in
>origin and not truly divine,
>then I will respond to
>this further....but first explain how
>Jesus's were truly divine and
>Krishna's were not?? That
>is, if that is what
>you were trying to say.

Responce: Well I don't believe Krishna was divine. But thats not what I was saying here, I was just showing that there is no way Jesus could have read the Old Testament and followed the prophesis. But you have to realize is that the gospel of Christ was not written by Christ but by eye witnesses which is very important in a court of law, that's the difference. An eyewitness is the most important thing that you can have inorder to justify a claim and that's what Christianity has.
>
>.
>
>In the Mahabaratha, Krishna was pre-prophesised
>to be born a Yadava,
>and that is why the
>King (ie. the evil King
>Kamsa) jailed his own sister
>and killed all her children...since
>she was the same blood
>line and might therefore be
>the bearer of his killer
>(which she eventually was).

Responce: can you prove this by an eyewitness account, what is the validity in this prophesy ( not trying to offend you). That's the whole point there were witnesses to all of Christ miracles and prophesis which will stand in a court of law. As a matter of fact it did. Simom Greenleaf the royal professor at harvard university did just that.

>Not sure where else it
>was right now...but all the
>Dasha avatars were pre-prophesised in
>the Brahma sutras, and in
>the Vedas. Vishnu explicitly
>said when he would come
>down (which yuga, or cyclical
>period), where he would be
>born, and for what purpose
>each time he came.
>All of this was told
>to Vyasa and other priests
>(who's names escape me right
>now...Valmiki(?)...I'll have to get back
>to you with reference #'s).


Responce: No prob, I'll wait.
>

>
>Fine...but that is by your perception,
>some see little difference.

respose: oh yeah how so.
>
>
>Oh my, I am really questioning
>the purpose of this now!
> Are you serious?
>What you said right here
>is proof for the "being
>bias" comment I made!

Responce: No its not bias by any means. I mean the story of Christ resurrection has a lot of evidence that he rose. Especially 5000 witnesses, that's not subjective.
>
>Ok, when I said that "Hindus
>believe that this is true"
>you claim that this is
>being subjective.

Responce: No I mean were there any witnesses. Why do you believe this, whats your case( not trying to offend you). I can point the fact that there were 5000 witnesses to Christ, to the fact that Paul's creed in 1 cor 15 dates back to the days of the hellenistc Jews. meaning that it dates back to 2 to 3 years of the event itself. Which says there was not enough time for legend to creep in. I can point to medical evidence the type of shock he went into. Historicle evidence such as the Yohanan.


But when
>you say Christians believe Christ's
>ressurection was a true historical
>event, you believe this is
>objective??? Let me explain
>this to you, when I
>said Hindus believe its true,
>I mean that Hindus believe
>that KRISHNA'S LIFE WAS TRUE
>HISTORICAL FACT, WHETHER WE BELIEVE
>IT OR NOT. The
>only reason I said "Hindus
>believe this" is because since
>you are Christian, I knew
>you wouldn't believe it.
>Hindus are also objective in
>this belief in Krishna (ie.
>they believe that whether or
>not anyone believes it, he
>really lived and performed all
>his miracles).

Respose: Now why do Hindus believe this.
>
>
>I don't understand you at all...a
>few posts ago (or maybe
>it was in another thread,
>can't remember) you were explaining
>that you were "qualified" to
>have such discussions and you
>even spent a paragraph explaining
>the Gita to me...and now
>you are asking me to
>point out where the proof
>is? I thought you
>read the Gita (or so
>was the impression I received
>from you post explaining it
>to me).

Response: Yeah I have a Gita, but i am no Hindu apologetic. I may know it pretty well. But I can't defend it.
>
>The proof is in the Gita!
> There is also other
>proof of his miriacles, (Mahabartha,
>Bhagavad Vahini) but right in
>the Gita Krishna performs a
>miracle when he shows Arjuna
>his cosmic (universal) form.
>It is in fact, a
>major part of the story...you
>ask questions like this, I
>assume, becuase you believe that
>the Gita is a "religious"
>book and you want something
>more "objective" right? But
>when anyone asks for proof
>of Christ's miracles, the Bible
>is quoted! How is
>the Bible more of a
>valid source of objectivity than
>other scriptures of other lands?

Response : easy, because the bible can be proven to be a divine book, by its prophesis. Look at eze 26-28 the prophesy of the city of Tyre and then check history and see what happened to the city of Tyre its exact. Look at Isiaih he told when Egypt was going to be attacked by the Assarians, then he also said when they attacked they would be joined by the Medes, then check history; it happended. You can check archeology with the black obelisk where we have in the Bible Jehu in 1 Kings paying homage to the Assarian emperor, manuscript evidence where have 5,366 copies of the new testament written in greek.

>Actually, to tell you the truth,
>I don't know how you
>thought I was debating anything...I
>explicitly stated that I was
>just STATING things...I think you
>may be thinking that "the
>best defense is a good
>offense"...or something...

Response: They very reason I came to this site was because there was an article were some lady was trying to disprove that Jesus existed. One of her arguments was that Krishna and Christ were a lot alike so I thought thats were you were going MY BAD.
>
>
>
>
>What does this mean? Do
>you really mean ok?
>I can't tell by the
>capitals...but in case you are
>trying to be sarcastic...I know
>that the name thing was
>a weak comparison, I was
>just making statements to show
>similarities among cultures, etc.


Responce: No I really meant ok (lower case).
>
>

>
>>
>In many parts of India, especially
>the south, villages usually tend
>to have a particular diety
>that they exclusively worship.
>In some places, Krishna is
>exclusively worshipped as God...I think
>they are called Krishnavites, or
>something to that affect...Shiva also
>has exclusive followers called Shivites.


Response: Oh. I know about those. Got you.
>
>
>On the same note, the fact
>that the "Hare-Krishna" movement arose
>shows the popularity of the
>Krishna deity....now I know you
>are going to make some
>cult comment or joke, but
>I am merely pointing out
>that Krishna is very important
>to Hinduism, and a very
>popular form to worship....so much
>so that a separate system
>developed around him (ie. Hare
>Krishnas). Also note, when
>I say popular, I don't
>mean in the sense you
>may think, I mean that
>he's a very commonly known
>form of God.



Responce: By the way are you Hindu, and do you belong to a specific sect.

>>Also
>>what I mean by temporary
>>incarnation is that Christians say
>>that Christ is forever in
>>the incarnation even after he
>>ascended to heaven.
>
>That may be so, but realise
>that to Christianity this is
>important, but in Hinduism it
>is not! Also, the
>term "temporary" (as I explained
>below) does not have the
>same force it does in
>Sanskrit...what i mean is, Hindus
>do not believe in a
>temporary state of God even
>though they do believe in
>dieties...its hard to explain for
>me, but its a concept
>called non-dualism (and note, the
>concept is not called "Everything
>is one" but "non-dualism"...that is
>for a reason! Think
>about it a bit and
>you might grasp what I
>am trying to say).

Response : I sure will.
>
>
>
>Well, people you talked to who
>said this are correct...in a
>sense. He is temporary
>in the Western/Christian perspective (ie.
>no longer in the form
>of Krishna) but they still
>believe that form of Krishna
>exists...even today! This is
>a difficult concept...

Response: I get you.
>
>As for verses...well...I don't have a
>Gita with me now...but check
>the chapters on "transcendental
>knowledge" and "Dhyana yoga"
>and also the chapter discussing
>having knowledge of the absolute.
> I will have to
>get back to you on
>the verses...

Response : Take your time. I'll look also.
>
>
>
>Don't understand this response?


Response: Oh I was saying its cool.
>
>Also, see post 91 (I think)
>in the "Christians Pro-Death Penalty"
>thread...in case you didn't see
>it yet.

Response: Will do peace.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
djrav
Charter member
989 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 09:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
189. "Response"
In response to Reply # 183


          

Ok, just to let you know, I am not going to be looking up any references for you...and before you say "see, there is no proof" its not. Its because I am actually pretty busy with school, certificate courses on the side, and I just got a new job last week that keeps me busier than ever. ..and I really don't have time to go searching the university library now. But that doesn't mean proof doesn't exist, if you look around the internet I'm sure you'll come across references for where to look and all...if you chose not to, that's also fine.

Also, I am not a "Hindu apologetic" (which is another reason I don't feel the need to go searchng right now), but from the way things have turned out here, I really seem like one, don't I? To tell you the truth, I don't know how things got to this point of me defending Hinduism, but I was really just asking what you thought of the belief that Christ travelled East for the sake of conversation...

But (and no, you don't have to believe me) I have been fortunate to learn a lot about Eastern religions, and let me tell you that there is much evidence for many of their beliefs too. It may not all be in written form either, but different cultures have different ways....

In a previous post you mentioned that this is more than a hobby to you (which leads me to assume that you either have a degree, or are studying theology, or are a priest) yet you also tell me that you will not tell me how you know anything, or where you've learned about other non-western cultures. Well, I'll tell you a bit about me. I have been very fortunate in my life to travel a great deal, and I spent over 3 and 1/2 years in India, most of my time there studying religion and culture...so I am not just speaking on what I don't know. I also have Hindu family members...but since you did ask before, I am not part of any Hindu sect. But I did spend a great deal of time learning from Hindu priests, and let me tell you, their reasoning is so much different than what we're used to...their logic behind their religion is much different, their approach to studying God and scriptures is also different. I actually heard first hand from them about prophesises, etc...but unfortunately coming back west has caused my Sanskrit skills to severly diminish, so looking up these references right now would be very tedious, and since my initial purpose wasn't to defend Hinduism, I don't see the point. I have also seen (first hand) many astonishing things that provide proof enough for me (and no, in case you are going to ask, its not levitating saints, or people walking on fire or any of that other stereotypical bull). If you travel through the Himalayas, you'll learn a lot more about what Hindu philosophy is about as opposed to the more ritualist practices of the rest of India.

I am sincerly glad that Christianity answered your questions...but to tell you the truth, it did not answer mine. (I was actually born Christian)...and what I have learnt from Eastern religions, and Native spirituality has actually brought me much more peace and joy than anything. I live a much cleaner, healthier life, and I am more happy than I ever was. So my point is, I am not going to continue defending Krishna, etc ( this may surprise you, but personally.....I am really not too concerned with whether he ever existed or not, I am more interested in the philosophy more than anything else...but I guess it might not have seemed that way, huh?) here since I am not a "Hindu apologetic", but just know, India has a very different way of doing things that Westerns will commonly mistake for ignorance or stupidity...but there is really much more to it....Sanathana Dharmic philosophy was actually a science at first (like a real natural science, like biology, chemistry, etc...to try and understand the universe) before in became the more ritualistic Hinduism we know today. If you want some references though, trying looking up David(?) Frawley, cause I think he's written a lot about the time/proof of various Hindu events...check his bibliographies...not sure though...

I am more of a philosopher than a theologian, so that may lead to a lot of our disagreements here...

>Response: But if you look at
>the prophesis of the Bible
> I think you'd be
>shocked at the level of
>detail inwhich they prophesied, like
>where he was born (
>and actually naming the city)
>when he would die(Daniel's seventy
>weeks)to the day. The prophet
>Isiah named the king of
>bablylon 75 years before hand
>and said he would release
>the Jews, Jeramiah foretold exactly
>how many years the Jews
>would be in exile. Ok
>big deal right, where here
>is the deal if you
>go outside the bible and
>compare it with history then
>you see that these men
>were prophets of God. It's
>one thing to predict a
>mans death its another to
>predict that he would be
>cruxified when cruxifiction had not
>been invented yet.

Man, this post is starting to inspire me to keep up with my Sanskrit so that I can actually show you some proof that would satisfy you more...what I wouldn't do for an extra hour each day ....I know I said I couldn't, but if I have some time I'll try to find you at least 1 or 2 references...

>Responce: Well I don't believe Krishna
>was divine. But thats not
>what I was saying here,
>I was just showing that
>there is no way Jesus
>could have read the Old
>Testament and followed the prophesis.
>But you have to realize
>is that the gospel of
>Christ was not written by
>Christ but by eye witnesses
>which is very important in
>a court of law, that's
>the difference. An eyewitness is
>the most important thing that
>you can have inorder to
>justify a claim and that's
>what Christianity has.

The eyewitness thing proves that we have a different approach to religion, etc in the west...but I really don't want to argue about this, cause I know where its going to lead..



>>In the Mahabaratha, Krishna was pre-prophesised
>>to be born a Yadava,
>>and that is why the
>>King (ie. the evil King
>>Kamsa) jailed his own sister
>>and killed all her children...since
>>she was the same blood
>>line and might therefore be
>>the bearer of his killer
>>(which she eventually was).
>
>Responce: can you prove this
>by an eyewitness account, what
>is the validity in this
>prophesy ( not trying to
>offend you). That's the whole
>point there were witnesses to
>all of Christ miracles and
>prophesis which will stand in
>a court of law. As
>a matter of fact it
>did. Simom Greenleaf the royal
>professor at harvard university did
>just that.

Just making a point here: but realize that Krishna was believed alive around 1500 years before Christ! So things were different...and that may also be why the type of proof you seek is harder for you to find.


>Responce: No I mean were there
>any witnesses. Why do you
>believe this, whats your case(
>not trying to offend you).
>I can point the fact
>that there were 5000 witnesses
>to Christ, to the fact
>that Paul's creed in 1
>cor 15 dates back to
>the days of the hellenistc
>Jews. meaning that it dates
>back to 2 to 3
>years of the event itself.]

Just wondering...is there any proof of the 5000 witnesses other than the Bible?


>Which says there was not
>enough time for legend to
>creep in. I can point
>to medical evidence the type
>of shock he went into.
>Historicle evidence such as the
>Yohanan.

I don't dispute this...in fact I heard about this (medical evidence and all) from (gasp!) a Hindu priest!
>
> But when
>>you say Christians believe Christ's
>>ressurection was a true historical
>>event, you believe this is
>>objective??? Let me explain
>>this to you, when I
>>said Hindus believe its true,
>>I mean that Hindus believe
>>that KRISHNA'S LIFE WAS TRUE
>>HISTORICAL FACT, WHETHER WE BELIEVE
>>IT OR NOT. The
>>only reason I said "Hindus
>>believe this" is because since
>>you are Christian, I knew
>>you wouldn't believe it.
>>Hindus are also objective in
>>this belief in Krishna (ie.
>>they believe that whether or
>>not anyone believes it, he
>>really lived and performed all
>>his miracles).
>
>Respose: Now why do Hindus believe
>this.

Believe that Krishna lived? Don't understand?


How is
>>the Bible more of a
>>valid source of objectivity than
>>other scriptures of other lands?
>
>Response : easy, because the bible
>can be proven to be
>a divine book, by its
>prophesis. Look at eze 26-28
>the prophesy of the city
>of Tyre and then check
>history and see what happened
>to the city of Tyre
>its exact.

Yeah, but you didn't answer my question "how is it more objective than other cutures' works?" Other books have made prophesies that have come true you know.


Look at Isiaih
>he told when Egypt was
>going to be attacked by
>the Assarians, then he also
>said when they attacked they
>would be joined by the
>Medes, then check history; it
>happended.

Check any chapter of the Upanishads for such prophesies...the Gita has prophesies by Krishna about India that have come true.


>Responce: By the way are you
>Hindu, and do you belong
>to a specific sect.

No. But I do find a lot of merit in it...the philosophical side.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 05:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
190. "I understand"
In response to Reply # 189


          

>Ok, just to let you know,
>I am not going to
>be looking up any references
>for you...and before you say
>"see, there is no proof"
>its not. Its because
>I am actually pretty busy
>with school, certificate courses on
>the side, and I just
>got a new job last
>week that keeps me busier
>than ever. ..and I really
>don't have time to go
>searching the university library now.

Response: That's cool I understand, congrats on the new job hope your successful.

> But that doesn't mean
>proof doesn't exist, if you
>look around the internet I'm
>sure you'll come across references
>for where to look and
>all...if you chose not to,
>that's also fine.

Responce: Sure, I reading the Gita last night, but if something is out there I hope to find it.
>
>Also, I am not a "Hindu
>apologetic" (which is another reason
>I don't feel the need
>to go searchng right now),
>but from the way things
>have turned out here, I
>really seem like one, don't
>I? To tell you
>the truth, I don't know
>how things got to this
>point of me defending Hinduism,
>but I was really just
>asking what you thought of
>the belief that Christ travelled
>East for the sake of
>conversation...

Response: Understood, you have to have a lot of time on your hands to practice apologetics.
>
>But (and no, you don't have
>to believe me) I have
>been fortunate to learn a
>lot about Eastern religions, and
>let me tell you that
>there is much evidence for
>many of their beliefs too.
> It may not all
>be in written form either,
>but different cultures have different
>ways....

Response: Understood
>
>In a previous post you mentioned
>that this is more than
>a hobby to you (which
>leads me to assume that
>you either have a degree,
>or are studying theology, or
>are a priest) yet you
>also tell me that you
>will not tell me how
>you know anything, or where
>you've learned about other non-western
>cultures.

Response: Hey, one of those things you mentioned is correct good guest, but I'll leave it at that. Maybe later on I'll tell you about my credentials, just not right now I have my reasons.

Well, I'll tell
>you a bit about me.
> I have been very
>fortunate in my life to
>travel a great deal, and
>I spent over 3 and
>1/2 years in India, most
>of my time there studying
>religion and culture...so I am
>not just speaking on what
>I don't know. I
>also have Hindu family members...but
>since you did ask before,
>I am not part of
>any Hindu sect. But
>I did spend a great
>deal of time learning from
>Hindu priests, and let me
>tell you, their reasoning is
>so much different than what
>we're used to...their logic behind
>their religion is much different,
>their approach to studying God
>and scriptures is also different.
> I actually heard first
>hand from them about prophesises,
>etc...but unfortunately coming back west
>has caused my Sanskrit skills
>to severly diminish, so looking
>up these references right now
>would be very tedious, and
>since my initial purpose wasn't
>to defend Hinduism, I don't
>see the point. I
>have also seen (first hand)
>many astonishing things that provide
>proof enough for me (and
>no, in case you are
>going to ask, its not
>levitating saints, or people walking
>on fire or any of
>that other stereotypical bull).
>If you travel through the
>Himalayas, you'll learn a lot
>more about what Hindu philosophy
>is about as opposed to
>the more ritualist practices of
>the rest of India.

Response: That sounds exciting, how many languages do you speak?
>
>I am sincerly glad that Christianity
>answered your questions...but to tell
>you the truth, it did
>not answer mine. (I
>was actually born Christian)...and what
>I have learnt from Eastern
>religions, and Native spirituality has
>actually brought me much more
>peace and joy than anything.
> I live a much
>cleaner, healthier life, and I
>am more happy than I
>ever was. So my
>point is, I am not
>going to continue defending Krishna,
>etc ( this may surprise
>you, but personally.....I am really
>not too concerned with whether
>he ever existed or not,
>I am more interested in
>the philosophy more than anything
>else...but I guess it might
>not have seemed that way,
>huh?) here since I am
>not a "Hindu apologetic", but
>just know, India has a
>very different way of doing
>things that Westerns will commonly
>mistake for ignorance or stupidity...but
>there is really much more
>to it....Sanathana Dharmic philosophy was
>actually a science at first
>(like a real natural science,
>like biology, chemistry, etc...to try
>and understand the universe) before
>in became the more ritualistic
>Hinduism we know today.
>If you want some references
>though, trying looking up David(?)
>Frawley, cause I think he's
>written a lot about the
>time/proof of various Hindu events...check
>his bibliographies...not sure though...

Response: I'll make a note of it.
>
>I am more of a philosopher
>than a theologian, so that
>may lead to a lot
>of our disagreements here...

Response: Yeah, I like philosophy also.
>
>
>Man, this post is starting to
>inspire me to keep up
>with my Sanskrit so that
>I can actually show you
>some proof that would satisfy
>you more...what I wouldn't do
>for an extra hour each
>day ....I know I said
>I couldn't, but if I
>have some time I'll try
>to find you at least
>1 or 2 references...

Response: Sure, no prob.
>
>
>The eyewitness thing proves that we
>have a different approach to
>religion, etc in the west...but
>I really don't want to
>argue about this, cause I
>know where its going to
>lead..


Response: Sure, no prob.
>
>
>
>Just making a point here: but
>realize that Krishna was believed
>alive around 1500 years before
>Christ! So things were
>different...and that may also be
>why the type of proof
>you seek is harder for
>you to find.

Response: Sure, I understand that, your going to really have to dig when you finish school.
>
>
>
>Just wondering...is there any proof of
>the 5000 witnesses other than
>the Bible?

Response: Yes, actually Paul did'nt make that up. He was stating a popular creed of that time. That's why I said it dates back 2 to 3 years of the actual event of the resurrection, to the days of the hellenistic jews.
>
>
>I don't dispute this...in fact I
>heard about this (medical evidence
>and all) from (gasp!) a
>Hindu priest!

Response: That's cool, theres is a lot of info out there.
>
>Believe that Krishna lived? Don't understand?

Response: One thing I always ask people including Christians is why do you believe this, in other words are you taking someones word for it. Is ther proof, are you just going of faith thats what I meant.
>
>
>
>Yeah, but you didn't answer my
>question "how is it more
>objective than other cutures' works?"
> Other books have made
>prophesies that have come true
>you know.

Response: But, what I am saying is not at the level the bible does. I mean pound for pound.
>
>
>Check any chapter of the Upanishads
>for such prophesies...the Gita has
>prophesies by Krishna about India
>that have come true.

Response: Ok, I'll keep searching for them. No big deal. Hey I understand your busy and all so I'll let you continue in your studies first because that is a top priority. I'll be around so you can reach me any time. I enjoyed our conversation and hope to pick it up later. peace
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
IllipticallyDefined

Sat Jun-30-01 09:12 AM

  
196. "RE: I understand"
In response to Reply # 190


          

Myabe john traveled to the east after jesus died... Jesus never reeallly talked about resurrection in the sense the east believes but... jesus talked about the place we weree all before before we came into existence, they might've got this confused w/ reincarnation>>> check this site, i think it maybe suspect though www.ancientmanuscripts.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

JESSEWA

Fri Jun-22-01 06:44 PM

  
51. "torched"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Hello,

What is the lesson behind Hell? Does it have something to tell us? Are we expendable? Do we not have something to contribute to tommorow and beyond? Are we useless? Are we unintended to be? If the fate of most of us resides in the land of torture, what does that tell you? I am afraid to answer at this moment.

Peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Chike
Charter member
32916 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "RE: torched"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

Took me a while to find out about this post. Very good one, I must say. Apocalypse especially has given some answers that have educated me, a Christian (osoclasi too).

>Hello,
>
>What is the lesson behind Hell?
>Does it have something to
>tell us? Are we expendable?

Expendable? We're all special and important, but we're also all subject to the laws of (1) the physical realm and (2) the spiritual realm. The first means our bodies will pass away. The second means our souls will live eternally with God or apart from God. The world is imperfect, but heaven cannot support any imperfection. Therefore, no sin can enter. God gives us, imperfect sinners, the ability through His grace to become clean and enter heaven to spend eternity with Him. Is there a lesson behind hell? Sure: don't go.

>Do we not have something
>to contribute to tommorow
>and beyond? Are we useless?
>Are we unintended to be?

While we are on earth, there are many ways to maximize our usefulness to ourselves and others. But earth is not all there is. After we leave earth, if we have not chosen to go with God, what do we have to contribute and, more importantly, to whom? To God? No, He is in need of nothing. To others? Once you're in heaven, what can I, who am not, give you when you have the ultimate treasure: eternal life?

>If the fate of most
>of us resides in the
>land of torture, what does
>that tell you? I am
>afraid to answer at this
>moment.

No one knows "the fate of most of us". There's a lot more that I could say to expand on that, but I'll just leave it at this: God wishes that everyone of us would have eternal life with Him.

I have to admit, I agree - this is a scary topic. It'd be much easier to stick with stuff like, was Jesus on a cross or a tree? I think the reason a lot of people don't like to talk about God and religion is because they realize the intense importance of the discussion to their very existence and what will happen when they die. That's why it's easy for Christians exploit hell and how it terrifies us as the best way to bring people to Jesus. To me, this is a very bad thing. Obviously, we can't pretend there's no hell and that damnation is not real, but for someone to come to Christ out of fear is backwards. God loves you and that is why you should love Him back and give Him your life. Nervously covering your eternal bases is shaky ground to stand on for a conversion. Especially since during your time on earth, you can't experience hell. Therefore it's easy to forget about it and if it's the driving force between your relationship with God (not a very comfortable basis for a relationship, eh?), how hard will it be to stop caring and backslide?

Instead of looking down at what could happen if you fall, take the outstretched hand that wants to lead you to safety and look ahead. Rely on His strength and promise to bring you to a better place. If you're already at the point where you care about what happens after this life, care about the good stuff.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
msm200

Sat Jun-23-01 06:49 AM

  
64. "I have a question about free will"
In response to Reply # 61


          

How about the people (our descendants) that had catholisism forcefully imposed on them? Africans, Native Americans, Aztecs, Maya, Inca, and slaves of the African diaspra all faced violent conversions, against thier will. How is this free will, and even more important, would these people have gone to hell if it wasn't for thier conversion?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 07:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: I have a question about free will"
In response to Reply # 64


          

> How about the people (our
>descendants) that had catholisism forcefully
>imposed on them? Africans, Native
>Americans, Aztecs, Maya, Inca, and
>slaves of the African diaspra
>all faced violent conversions, against
>thier will. How is this
>free will, and even more
>important, would these people have
>gone to hell if it
>wasn't for thier conversion?


Responce: The violent conversion of those people that you mentioned was not a good example of free will. The God of the bible will never force anyone against his will, so I think it is safe to say that the people who forced Christianity on the slaves were acting in direct opposition of God's will. God does not force people into free will. Now, would they have been saved without there conversion thats a good question lets see what scripture says,1)Romans chpts 1 and 2 in the New Testament Paul says that salvation is available to any person who responds to the light of nature and conscience, if he has not heard the Good News about Jesus Christ, if this person will respond to the witness of God in nature-- he can see there is a Creator God, and if he senses the moral law of God written in his heart, and he responds, Paul says in Rom chpt 2 in verse 7, God will give that person eternal life. Now that does not mean he's saved apart from Christ, but it would mean that he may not hae a conscious knowledge of Christ, which is the basis of his salvation. He would be like a person in the Old Testament who was saved through Christ, even though he hadn't yet heard of Christ; he responded to the light that he had.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 06:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
154. "Occlasi, you confuse me..."
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

The violent conversion of those
>people that you mentioned was
>not a good example of
>free will. The God of
>the bible will never force
>anyone against his will, so
>I think it is safe
>to say that the people
>who forced Christianity on the
>slaves were acting in direct
>opposition of God's will. God
>does not force people into
>free will.

I'm confused. The violent conversion of those people WAS in the God of the Bible's will it says so in Deuteronomy Chap 28...Can you HONESTLY say that the worldwide slavery of africans wasn't prophesized by God as punishment?

And if so, will you be so bold as to say that punishment isn't in God's will?

Lastly, I'ma hit you later wih a question on the book of Ecclesiastes...Stay awake...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
170. "sorry to confuse"
In response to Reply # 154


          

>
>I'm confused. The violent conversion
>of those people WAS in
>the God of the Bible's
>will it says so in
>Deuteronomy Chap 28...Can you HONESTLY
>say that the worldwide slavery
>of africans wasn't prophesized by
>God as punishment?

Responce: Yes, I can. Look up the verse again Duet 28 is tallkig about Daily offerings, sabbath,and the feast of weeks.I don't see anything dealing with slavery.
>
>And if so, will you be
>so bold as to say
>that punishment isn't in God's
>will?

Responce: I'm not going to even pretend I understand all of God's will, but I can assure you that the men who were in charge of the slave trade were acting in direct opposition to the will of God, because God never condones murder.
>


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 07:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "You allude to a good point . . ."
In response to Reply # 61


          

There is so much focus on hell that people never ponder the benefits of serving Christ. Hell is only a microchosm of Christian Doctrine. Personally, I very rarely think about going to hell. The relationship that I have with Christ is much to fulfilling for me to worry about hell. Is there anything that anyone likes about Christianity, whether you're a Christian or not?

Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
IllipticallyDefined

Mon Jun-25-01 12:07 PM

  
122. "RE: torched"
In response to Reply # 61


          

I got a question and like to share something...

Is Hell and heaven a decision?

also i've always wondered what if its not God who judges but ourselves, since he already wants us there no matter what, what if we are so resentful of our life and shameful that we cannot choose heaven? I know im drawing allot of these thoughts from fiction, like that robin williams movie where the woman commits the suicide, but i also drew personal experiences, throughout my life when i have sinned or done something immoral or wrong, i would think God was punishing me, and when i looked at it realistically I was the one who punished myself since i was the one who made the decision? ya dig?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

JESSEWA

Sat Jun-23-01 08:46 AM

  
67. "bible- without error?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

why do many people consider the bible to be the infallible word of god?

is it not just ok to accept it as a great compilation of inspirational stories, a guidebook on how to treat others, and a reference to spiritual matters. accept it for what it is. because, unfortunately, it is passed through the hands of many men, through thousands of years. and Who Knows what could have happened. so why do yall think its so infallible?

peace


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
IllipticallyDefined

Sat Jun-23-01 09:32 AM

  
68. "RE: bible- without error?"
In response to Reply # 67


          

don't know, but my friends girl is christian and he's not, she cried when he said the bible has contradictions, she said he was badmouthing her faith, do you really think we're badmouthing one faith when saying they're doctrine has contradictions?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Apocalypse
Charter member
611 posts
Sat Jun-23-01 04:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Basic reply . . ."
In response to Reply # 68


          

First, no, I don't consider people that don't believe bad mouthing the faith, I consider them people that don't believe. Second, there has been a lot of research done as to the inerrancy of Scripture, particularly the New Testament. First scribal customs were very rigorous and meticulous to watch for errors (to the point that if there was a slight mistake, the whole papryus was discarded and restarted). Also, consider a couple of facts:

1. There are over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of portions of the New Testament, more than any other work of antiquity. The Iliad is second with 643.

2. Based on counts of many skeptics and archeologists (not Christians), of the 20,000+ lines in the NT, only about 400 words (equivelant to 40 lines) are in question, and the vast majority of those words are conjunctions, articles, etc (and some comma splices). None of the words in question have any effect on the message. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.

That's just the NT, and there's a lot more Archeological evidence. Check out a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He was an athiest and historian/religious scholar who worte a book striving to prove Christianity was a hoax and the Bible was untrustworthy. When he finished his study and findings, he became a Christian, based on the history and archeologial evidence he found on the Bible, Jesus, and the Historical accuracy of the resurrection.

Just some food for thought . . .




Apocalypse

"When purpose is not known, abuse is inevitable . . ."

"And that's all I have to say about that . . ." ~ Forrest Gump

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
IllipticallyDefined

Sat Jun-23-01 10:29 PM

  
74. "RE: Basic reply . . ."
In response to Reply # 69


          

maybe first off we should talk about the word "error" or "contradiction" allot of "non believers" as you say and some "believers" see that there are contradictions in the bible... a very popular argument the commandment "thou shall not kill" and then the phrase "an eye for an eye" thats what we mean by error or contradiction, and if you know the definition of contradiction then what i just said was a blatant contradiction...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 08:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "this is not one:"
In response to Reply # 74


          

>Responce : The statement below is not a contridition.

maybe first off we should talk
>about the word "error" or
>"contradiction" allot of "non believers"
>as you say and some
>"believers" see that there are
>contradictions in the bible... a
>very popular argument the commandment
>"thou shall not kill" and
>then the phrase "an eye
>for an eye" thats what
>we mean by error or
>contradiction, and if you know
>the definition of contradiction then
>what i just said was
>a blatant contradiction...

Responce: Here's how as one of the Christians on the site about capital punshiment stated. The Hebrew word used for killing (harag) is not used but rather a more specific term for murder(ratsach). A more proper translation would be thou shall not murder. An eye for an eye... reflected that a person commiting a crime would recieve just punishment for whatever he did. In other words if I robbed a candy store then I don't deserve death, however if I murder someone then I do. Get it.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
IllipticallyDefined

Sun Jun-24-01 06:43 PM

  
90. "RE: this is not one:"
In response to Reply # 78


          

right, but any way its still wrong to kill... Would jesus kill a man if the man killed his mother? i don't think so

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "RE: this is not one:"
In response to Reply # 90


          

>right, but any way its still
>wrong to kill...

No it's not wrong to kill......for instance you eat dont you?
Animals we eat are killed for food.
If you are a vegetarian ...Vegetables and fruits are killed to fill your plate. If you went to the prom a plant was killed to place on the arm of your date.

Now if you are refering to Killing with malice intent (murder) of another human being then that's another story.
Killing isn't always wrong
Murder is always wrong


Would jesus
>kill a man if the
>man killed his mother? i
>don't think so

There's no point for this hypothetical questions since it never occurred.

But.....to answer you i'll refer you to this passage Matthew 26: 52-54... Jesus said to him (referring to Peter) " for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think i cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But then how would Scripture be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Now verse 52 "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword".....is talking about capital punishment. If you murder someone then you will be put to death. Peter was attacking the high priest's servant with malice intent. Jesus warned him of what would happen. Jesus didn't disagree with capital punishment. 53-54... Jesus has a specific job to carry out and futher explained that he could get 12 legions of angels back him up meaning he could take out everybody.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
IllipticallyDefined

Mon Jun-25-01 04:19 AM

  
99. "RE: this is not one:"
In response to Reply # 94


          

and turn the other cheek?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
133. "RE: this is not one:"
In response to Reply # 99


          

>and turn the other cheek?

Responce: This is a hyperbole, meaning extreme exageration. What that means is that when a person insults you or treats you unfairly, you don't lash out and treat that person with the same type of anger he has shown you. You turn the other cheek and handle it a better way.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 06:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
155. "VERY good, baby girl n/m"
In response to Reply # 94


  

          


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Eklektisisum

Sat Jun-23-01 07:40 PM

  
71. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 0


          

My one and only question is, how is the Bible considered the book of truth when it is incomplete??? There are so many parts to the Bible that aren't in there because they were written by women or for various other reasons that turn out to be political and not spiritual. If the Bible is the book of truth, and the book is incomplete, is not the truth incomplete??????

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 08:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "quick question:"
In response to Reply # 71


          

>My one and only question is,
>how is the Bible considered
>the book of truth when
>it is incomplete??? There
>are so many parts to
>the Bible that aren't in
>there because they were written
>by women or for various
>other reasons that turn out
>to be political and not
>spiritual. If the Bible
>is the book of truth,
>and the book is incomplete,
>is not the truth incomplete??????

Responce: what books are you referring to as being written by women or thrown out because of political reasons?
>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Swayz19
Charter member
132 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "RE: quick question:"
In response to Reply # 79


          

>>My one and only question is,
>>how is the Bible considered
>>the book of truth when
>>it is incomplete??? There
>>are so many parts to
>>the Bible that aren't in
>>there because they were written
>>by women or for various
>>other reasons that turn out
>>to be political and not
>>spiritual. If the Bible
>>is the book of truth,
>>and the book is incomplete,
>>is not the truth incomplete??????
>
>Responce: what books are you referring
>to as being written by
>women or thrown out because
>of political reasons?
>>



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Swayz19
Charter member
132 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "RE: quick question:"
In response to Reply # 80


          

Im sorry about that .. anyway what i was trying to say, was in jamacia there was a version of the "macabee" bible that had original versions of the bible that contained lost books such as the book of barnabus,ect. (refer to a book called lost books of the bible)and that book contadicted some of the christian beliefs such as if jesus had any brothers, ect. anyway it was said that if you were found with this bible you would be arrested. well that to me sounds like some america FBI coverup stuff. well i do Know that there are books that were dated around the time of the old testament, yet were never composed in the making of the bible because we all do know it was the nicean council (refer to the dictionary) who copmposed this book...But my question is #1 who did they compose this book for ? #2 who was cain (in the old testament) refering to when he said in genisis, that the people in the land of Nod would kill him if he recieved the mark on his forhead if according to the bible there were only adam,eve,cain,abel,and suppossed wives(sisters,whatever)? . #3 doesnt that contradict the only adam and eve theory, which in it self is a contradiction in the bible?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
107. "RE: quick answer:"
In response to Reply # 81


          

>Im sorry about that .. anyway
>what i was trying to
>say, was in jamacia there
>was a version of the
>"macabee" bible that had original
>versions of the bible that
>contained lost books such as
>the book of barnabus,ect. (refer
>to a book called lost
>books of the bible)and that
>book contadicted some of the
>christian beliefs such as if
>jesus had any brothers, ect.
>anyway it was said that
>if you were found with
>this bible you would be
>arrested. well that to me
>sounds like some america FBI
>coverup stuff. well i do
>Know that there are books
>that were dated around the
>time of the old testament,
>yet were never composed in
>the making of the bible
>because we all do know
>it was the nicean council
>(refer to the dictionary) who
>copmposed this book...But my question
>is #1 who did they
> compose this book for

Responce: What, you have to realize is that the council of nicea did not have anything to do with the selecting of the canon, it was a debate between a man named Arius and Athenasus( I spelled that wrong) Also the word canon means measuring rod, so what happended was that the church fathers realized that there were rules to follow dealing with what books fit in together. Concerning the books you mentioned you have to take note that in the days of Jesus the old testament was already set the had books already in front of them, that's why Jesus would respond as it is written, also the apostles nor Christ never mentioned any of the above books, also neither did any of the early church. Then in AD 70 the council of Jamnia put the official books of the old testament in order, even though the books were already recognized as part of scripture.
>? #2 who was cain
>(in the old testament) refering
>to when he said in
>genisis, that the people in
>the land of Nod would
>kill him if he recieved
>the mark on his forhead
>if according to the bible
>there were only adam,eve,cain,abel,and suppossed
>wives(sisters,whatever)? .

Responce: Adam lived to be 9oo plus years, so by the time cain killed abel there were many people who lived in the land who had spread across the near east.

#3 doesnt that
>contradict the only adam and
>eve theory, which in it
>self is a contradiction in
>the bible?

Responce: No not at all, Adam had children , his children had children. The bible is not written as a step by step narritive it skips generations an so forth. Like son could mean grandson.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Eklektisisum

Sun Jun-24-01 11:55 AM

  
82. "RE: Aight Osoclasi"
In response to Reply # 79


          

No book in particular it's just a ,atter of common sense. If "Jesus Christ" came into contact with so many people by coming down from Heaven to be on their level, why are there no books in the Bible written by women??? What, Jesus didn't talk to women??? Mary Magdailin(check sp.) was very close to Jesus, she had no written or verbal account of him??? I guess all I'm saying is that if Jesus touched so many in his time why is the New Testament of the Bible so damn thin(no disrespect with the next to last word)???? I'm really not trying to argue, just a question.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
IllipticallyDefined

Sun Jun-24-01 05:44 PM

  
88. "RE: Aight Osoclasi"
In response to Reply # 82


          

Theres a gnostic gospel called "the gospel of mary" although many may say it was a heresy, many of the early church fathers burned them, but who are they do judge?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
111. "RE: Aight Osoclasi"
In response to Reply # 82


          

>No book in particular it's just
>a ,atter of common sense.
> If "Jesus Christ" came
>into contact with so many
>people by coming down from
>Heaven to be on their
>level, why are there no
>books in the Bible written
>by women??? What, Jesus
>didn't talk to women???
>Mary Magdailin(check sp.) was very
>close to Jesus, she had
>no written or verbal account
>of him??? I guess
>all I'm saying is that
>if Jesus touched so many
>in his time why is
>the New Testament of the
>Bible so damn thin(no disrespect
>with the next to last
>word)???? I'm really not
>trying to argue, just a
>question.


Respopnce: Just as there are roles in the trinity there are roles in Gods church and redemptive plan. During the time of the Old Testament and even in Jesus day women were viewed as inferior. There is no way that people Jesus witness to would have accepted a book written by women. It was so bad that in a court of law it a women saw something being done that was wronge the court would not accept what she says, if a man saw the same thing then all of a sudden this was correct. Jesus raised women to a new status, making the even with men, you no there is no male female speech in galations. So Jesus elevated women that's why.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
kastfan

Mon Jun-25-01 12:09 PM

  
123. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 71


          

There
>are so many parts to
>the Bible that aren't in
>there because they were written
>by women or for various
>other reasons that turn out
>to be political and not
>spiritual.

exactly what books are you talking about? There are books in the bible that were written by women so I don't see why they would leave other books out for that reason

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 04:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "The WORD?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

HTP
What scriptural reference can I find that calls the "Holy Bible" itself, the "WORD of God?"

People often call the Bible "God's Word" but is this "scripturally-based?"


PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
112. "RE: The WORD?"
In response to Reply # 84


          

>HTP
>What scriptural reference can I find
>that calls the "Holy Bible"
>itself, the "WORD of God?"
>
>
>People often call the Bible "God's
>Word" but is this "scripturally-based?"


Responce: I don't have my bible in front of me right now but I think I can answer this from the top of my head. Internally if you remember Jesus called the scripture the word of God, when he was being tempted by saying, by stating it is written. It is written showed that he held the scriptures in authority to anything else and that they would not change. Also in I think its 2 Tim ( I'll find the verse later if you can't find it first) it says that all scripture is God breath, it should be used in conseling, rebuking, and so forth. Then finally Christians believe that the bible is the word of God because it has been proven to be. Look at some of the prophesis in scripture especially Ezekial 26-28 about the city of Tyre then compare it to history you'll be amazed, or look at the prophesis of Isiah in regards to the destruction of babylon, also there is manuscript evidence,and archeology and statistical probabilty as well. If you want more then hit me up when I have some of my resources in front of me.
>
>
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
utamaroho

Mon Jun-25-01 11:00 AM

  
114. "so in other words..."
In response to Reply # 112


          

to answer his question..."NO" or "I DON'T KNOW".

(((((PEACE)))))
____________________________________________________________
“One who has not studied the facts has no place in a discussion.” -Mao Zedong

"God is good, me love God, God love me. God will take care of me, Jesus love me too, I will repent all my sins and give me to Jesus, Jesus will take me to heaven with him. Jesus loves me, me good. Me give money to church, church good. Pastor needs new car, Jesus loves me, Jesus loves pastor. Jesus is God, jesus is son of God, Jesus is father of god, me confused now. Me go to sleep now, me need nap, me brain tired. -Christians"
-ish_skywalker

"Considering the fact that Islam is a disgrace to human kind, Christianity is a disgrace to everything in the universe, Judiasm is just one confusing mess, and the rest of em are all praying to aliens from outer space. I say we have a religion where the only rule is that you know how to roll a Garcia Vega. Ya know? And if I can't be god, can I be one of the people who gets to make hypocritical rules and then not follow them like them stinking Catholics? Please, pretty please, with the Annunaki on top?" -ish_skywalker

"That 112 song that says "If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it and you really want to show it...if you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap)." This TRULY sucks. I shut it off after that, but i'm still wondering if the second verse says "if you're sexy and you know it stomp your feet (stomp, stomp)". This is an all time low for music, period. It makes me wish 2 of those guys from 112 would die so they could be called 110." -NazDak

THIS IS SOME FUNNY SHIT!


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
130. "RE: so in other words..."
In response to Reply # 114


          

>to answer his question..."NO" or "I
>DON'T KNOW".
>

Responce : No I responded, I just did'nt have my bible with me today. Just in case I messed up somewhere.

>"God is good, me love God,

Responce: Good

>God love me. God will
>take care of me, Jesus
>love me too,

Responce : he sure will

I will
>repent all my sins and
>give me to Jesus

Responce: that's the first step.

, Jesus
>will take me to heaven
>with him. Jesus loves me,
>me good. Me give money
>to church, church good

Responce: Yes, its important to tithe

. Pastor
>needs new car, Jesus loves
>me, Jesus loves pastor.

Responce: Yeah, I need one too

Jesus
>is God, jesus is son
>of God,

Responce: Good your getting the hang of it.

Jesus is father
>of god,

Responce: No his not the Father, you need a little work with the trinity.

me confused now.

Responce: yeah, I can see that.

>Me go to sleep now,
>me need nap, me brain
>tired.

Responce: alright get a good nights sleep.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Chike
Charter member
32916 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 08:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
188. "osoclasi"
In response to Reply # 130


  

          

>>to answer his question..."NO" or "I
>>DON'T KNOW".
>>
>
>Responce : No I responded, I
>just did'nt have my bible
>with me today. Just in
>case I messed up somewhere.

For real, I don't know what response utamoroho was reading.

>>"God is good, me love God,
>
>Responce: Good
>
>>God love me. God will
>>take care of me, Jesus
>>love me too,
>
>Responce : he sure will
>
> I will
>>repent all my sins and
>>give me to Jesus
>
>Responce: that's the first step.
>
>, Jesus
>>will take me to heaven
>>with him. Jesus loves me,
>>me good. Me give money
>>to church, church good
>
>Responce: Yes, its important to tithe
>
>
>. Pastor
>>needs new car, Jesus loves
>>me, Jesus loves pastor.
>
>Responce: Yeah, I need one too
>
>
> Jesus
>>is God, jesus is son
>>of God,
>
>Responce: Good your getting the hang
>of it.
>
>Jesus is father
>>of god,
>
>Responce: No his not the Father,
>you need a little work
>with the trinity.
>
> me confused now.
>
>Responce: yeah, I can see that.
>
>
>>Me go to sleep now,
>>me need nap, me brain
>>tired.
>
>Responce: alright get a good nights
>sleep.

Ha ha! See, that's what you call patience...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
129. "Here's the scriptures"
In response to Reply # 112


          

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,correcting and training in rightousness, so that the man of God may be thouroghly equipped for every good work.

God breath signifies that all of the writters were carried by God sort of like the wind carries a sail,.

Jesus described the scriptures as the very word that comes out of the mouth of God. Matt 4:4 7,10.

Also scripture claims " thus says the Lord" Isa 1:11

Also in Matt 15:6 Jesus told the Jews " Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your traditions>

Rom 3:2 Paul speaks of the scriptures as the " oracles of God"

Heb 4:12 says that word of God is sharper than a double edge sword.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
162. "Then"
In response to Reply # 129


  

          

is there a difference between the "Word" (Jesus) and the "word" (bible) of God?

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
174. "RE: Then"
In response to Reply # 162


          

>is there a difference between the
>"Word" (Jesus) and the "word"
>(bible) of God?


Responce: No, because we believe that Jesus is God.
and the one who spoke the world into existance.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 05:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "The Bible: Where' s the REST of it?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

HTP

The Bible is often considered as being the complete "works of the LORD." Even the hands of men have not been able to disturb or taint the "word of God." Or have they?

In the Bible there are several references to other books of God that are not in the current (Protestant) Bible of today.
Examples:

(all from NASV)
Numbers 21:14
Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD

Joshua 10:13
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

2 Samuel 1:18
and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

1 Chronicles 29:29
"Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer,

2 Chronicles 9:29
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:15
Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, according to genealogical enrollment? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

2 Chronicles 20:34
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first to last, behold, they are written in the annals of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel.


So the question is: Where is the REST of the Bible?

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 11:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
115. "RE: The Bible: Where' s the REST of it?"
In response to Reply # 86


          

>HTP
>
>The Bible is often considered as
>being the complete "works of
>the LORD." Even the
>hands of men have not
>been able to disturb or
>taint the "word of God."
>Or have they?
>
>In the Bible there are several
> references to other books
>of God that are not
>in the current (Protestant) Bible
>of today.
>Examples:
>
>(all from NASV)
>Numbers 21:14
>Therefore it is said in the
>Book of the Wars of
>the LORD
>
>Joshua 10:13
>So the sun stood still, and
>the moon stopped,
>Until the nation avenged themselves of
>their enemies.
>Is it not written in the
>book of Jashar? And the
>sun stopped in the middle
>of the sky and did
>not hasten to go down
>for about a whole day.
>
>
>2 Samuel 1:18
>and he told them to teach
>the sons of Judah the
>song of the bow; behold,
>it is written in the
>book of Jashar.
>
>1 Chronicles 29:29
>"Now the acts of King David,
>from first to last, are
>written in the chronicles of
>Samuel the seer, in the
>chronicles of Nathan the prophet
>and in the chronicles of
>Gad the seer,
>
>2 Chronicles 9:29
>Now the rest of the acts
>of Solomon, from first to
>last, are they not written
>in the records of Nathan
>the prophet, and in the
>prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,
>and in the visions of
>Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam
>the son of Nebat?
>
>2 Chronicles 12:15
>Now the acts of Rehoboam, from
>first to last, are they
>not written in the records
>of Shemaiah the prophet and
>of Iddo the seer, according
>to genealogical enrollment? And there
>were wars between Rehoboam and
>Jeroboam continually.
>
>2 Chronicles 20:34
>Now the rest of the acts
>of Jehoshaphat, first to last,
>behold, they are written in
>the annals of Jehu the
>son of Hanani, which is
>recorded in the Book of
>the Kings of Israel.
>
>
>So the question is: Where is
>the REST of the Bible?

Responce: Good question, there are some more you did'nt list but I get the point. Remember just because the bible mentioned these books does not mean they were insprired, they were just recordings of events. Ex: Paul in his ministry qouted some books that were from other sources (meaning non christians sources) but that does not mean that the book was insprired. He used it to prove a point, also it should be noted that the books from Joshua threw 2 Kings are referred to as the Dueto-historical books, what that means is that the authors were writting the books from the perspective of how Isreal and its Kings responded to the law of Duetoronomy, thats why they are together like they was the are. So its not an exhaustive historicle account more of a theological one.
>
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 02:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
142. "Hmm"
In response to Reply # 115


  

          



>>(all from NASV)
>>Numbers 21:14
>>Therefore it is said in the
>>Book of the Wars of
>>the LORD

"Remember just because the bible mentioned these books does not mean they were insprired, they were just recordings of events.

So is "inspiration" defining factor of the scriptures ccepted as the 'Holy Bible?" The preceding passage call the book of the "Lord." Is that not enogh to make "Bible status." Also if "inspiration" was so important, then why aren't so-called "Gnostic Texts" considered "Holy?"


PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 04:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
147. "canon of scripture:"
In response to Reply # 142


          

>
>
>>>(all from NASV)
>>>Numbers 21:14
>>>Therefore it is said in the
>>>Book of the Wars of
>>>the LORD
>
.
>
>
>So is "inspiration" defining factor of
>the scriptures ccepted as the
>'Holy Bible?"

Responce: Correct, it has to meet a certain criteria.

The preceding passage
>call the book of the
>"Lord."
Responce: Does'nt that say that its the book of the wars of the Lord?(meaning its only a recording of the wars) And no thats not part of the criteria.

Is that not
>enogh to make "Bible status."
> Also if "inspiration" was
>so important, then why aren't
>so-called "Gnostic Texts" considered "Holy?"

Responce: No, not at all. Why? because the gnostic gospels don't reach the canon of scripture. First let me give you some criteria for your own research here are five.

1) Was it written by a prophet of God? Duet 18:18 tell us that only a prophet will speak the word of God. This is the way that God will speak the Word of God.

2) Was he confirmed by an act of God? Heb2:3-4 gives us the idea that we should expect some miriculous confirmation of those who speak for God. Moses had his rod that turned into a serpent, Jesus had a resurrection, and the apostles continued Jesus's miracles. Many of the prophesis were fufilled shortly after they were made.

3)Does it tell the truth about God? It has to agree with all earlier revalation is essesntial. This dictum also ruled out false prophets.

4)Does it have the power of God? Any writing that does not exhibit the tranforming power of GOd in the lives of the reader does not come from God.

5) Was it accepted by the people of God? Like Moses books were immediatly put in the ark of the covenant. Paul thank the Thessolonians for recieving the gospels, Joshua's writings were done in the same fashion as Moses.

For both the old and new testament there are certain books that were accepted by everyone, some were later disputed and some were rejected by all. the gnostic gospels are part of the new testament pseudepigrapha which means "false writing". They were called this because the use the name of some apostle instead of there own such as the gospel of Peter and the Acts of John. The books teach two of the earliest heresies, both that deny the reality of the incarnation. They said that Jesus was really only a sprit that looked like a man; so his resurrection was just a return to spiritual form. They claimed to provide information about Jesus' childhood, but the stories they recorded are highly unlikely and are not from eyewitnesses. NO one accepted these as scripture in any sense except the heritical factions which created them.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 06:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
156. "Dear Solarus..."
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

Are you a search engine? A Library?
just wanted to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
161. "Neither :-)"
In response to Reply # 156


  

          


____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

360sunsumyea
Charter member
653 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
91. ""once saved always saved""
In response to Reply # 0


          

** i do not have chapter and verse for this**
but,
i was always taught that once you were saved, accept-believe-confess, you would always be saved, and nothing you could do or think could change that.

is there a biblical reference for this?

**********THE SIG**********

"If you don't get it, why Outkast is so dope, then accept the fact that you may never understand why. And move on to a group that fits your likes and social situation better"
-bananaman

"the matrix is a system...that system is our enemy. when you're inside, when you look around, what do you see? businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds of the people we are trying to save. until we do, these people are still a part of that sysytem, and that makes them our enemy. but you have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged...they are so helplessly dependent on the system, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it...anyone we haven't unplugged is potentially an agent. inside the matrix, they are everyone, and they are no one. we have survived by hiding from them and by running from them. but they are the gatekeepers. they are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys. which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them."
-morpheus

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
philiagoddess

Mon Jun-25-01 07:48 AM

  
104. "RE: "once saved always saved""
In response to Reply # 91


          

>** i do not have chapter
>and verse for this**
>but,
>i was always taught that once
>you were saved, accept-believe-confess, you
>would always be saved, and
>nothing you could do or
>think could change that.
>
>is there a biblical reference for
>this?


no, there is no biblical reference or verse that supports this statement.....

peace in love,
philia

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
835

Mon Jun-25-01 10:46 AM

  
110. "RE: "once saved always saved""
In response to Reply # 104


          

"we are not saved by works, but by faith"

You can be stuck in a sin and still be saved. If you accept Jesus and all He said, you'd want to change those things about you, but being human, you're always going to get stuck. It's all in the intent.

That's how I see it anyway.

8:35

http://www.mp3.com/835
http://www.mp3.com/forgottendialect
http://www.mp3.com/atedurdyjive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 11:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
116. "phil 1:6"
In response to Reply # 91


          

>** i do not have chapter
>and verse for this**
>but,
>i was always taught that once
>you were saved, accept-believe-confess, you
>would always be saved, and
>nothing you could do or
>think could change that.
>
>is there a biblical reference for
>this?

Yes, there are I don't have my bible on front of me right at this moment but from the top of my head if you look at Phil 1:6 I believe you will find out that it says that God is continuing a good work in you until the day you die. Basically what's going on is that there is a theological term called justification which means after a person is saved he is now postionally rightous before God, there is also a term that called santification and that is what phil 1:6 shows that it is an on going process that we go through that Christ is confirming us to his likeness every single day until the day we die. Also in I believe John 6 i can't remeber the verse but if you read the chpt Christ says that he will not lose anyone that the father has given to him not even one. If I am off with the verse I will fond it for you.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

360sunsumyea
Charter member
653 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
92. ""jewish loophole""
In response to Reply # 0


          

**again, no reference, just the ?**

it has been so long that my memory is a lil foggy, but don't jews (144,000 or something) have a special place in heaven- because they are god's chosen people?

if this is true, doesn't the argument over who are the original jews matter a whole lot?



**********THE SIG**********

"i don't see nothin wrong with being strong, what you afraid of devil it's just a song?"
-goodie mob

"my label may not support this
cause it's not always entertaining to be true
and if they made sure that every word was heard
it would mean that they believe in the same shit we do."
-cee-lo

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
julius

Mon Jun-25-01 12:04 PM

  
121. "RE: "jewish loophole""
In response to Reply # 92


          

I am Jewish, and the idea of Jews being the chosen people is one that has troubled me. I admit I haven't done my research on this.

A lot of religions have a version of this concept. For example, many Christians believe that accepting Jesus as the savior is the only path to heaven.

For myself, my belief in God doesn't strongly relate to my interest in the afterlife, so wether or not I am "chosen" seems like a discussion I don't need to have.

However, I do think that, in a more general sense, if you believe in God, then that should do it. And it doesn't matter to me if you call God as Jesus, Buddha, Alla or whatever.

I use the Bible as a guide, but if you take everything in the Bible literally, then it causes conflict.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 07:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
125. "RE: "jewish loophole""
In response to Reply # 92


          

>it has been so long that
>my memory is a lil
>foggy, but don't jews (144,000
>or something) have a special
>place in heaven- because they
>are god's chosen people?

Well it's not a loophole. 144,000 refers to the Jews that will be saved during the tribulation period Revelation 7: 4 talks about this. For clarification this passage doesn't mean that only 144,000 goes to heaven 7: 9 states how a great multitude that no one could count from every nation, tribe, people and language standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb.


>if this is true, doesn't the
>argument over who are the
>original jews matter a whole
>lot?

The argument wouldn't be who were the original jews but Which of the Original tribes would be a part of the 144,000. Rev. 7: 5-8 tells which jewish tribes the 144,000 will come from.
Now the Twelve tribes came from Jacob's 12 sons Gen: 46: 8-27.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

360sunsumyea
Charter member
653 posts
Sun Jun-24-01 09:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
93. ""for the record""
In response to Reply # 0


          

what exactly must one do to be saved?

won't satan be saved too? because he knows the truth, he just tries to deceive others of this truth right? and it's not the actions that matter, but the belief in jesus, so he should be a'ight?

**********THE SIG**********

"i don't see nothin wrong with being strong, what you afraid of devil it's just a song?"
-goodie mob

"my label may not support this
cause it's not always entertaining to be true
and if they made sure that every word was heard
it would mean that they believe in the same shit we do."
-cee-lo

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 09:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
137. "RE: Romans 10: 9-11"
In response to Reply # 93


          

>what exactly must one do to
>be saved?

"That if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.For it is with the Heart the you believe and are justifed, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says "anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Salvation involves and inward belief as well as an outward confession.



>won't satan be saved too?
>because he knows the truth,
>he just tries to deceive
>others of this truth right?
> and it's not the
>actions that matter, but the
>belief in jesus, so he
>should be a'ight?

Christ didn't come to save the devil or his evil angel buddies. "2Peter 2: 4 For God did not spare angels when they sinned but sent them to hell putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement." The devil's heart is against God. He acknowledges God but chooses to go against him. James 2: 19 states "You believe that there is one God. Good! even demons believe that - and shudder." So the devil and his buddies know that God exist yet their hearts are completely against him. So salvation is not just acknowledging God exist but Trusting in Him and His word and confessing outwardly that the only God that exist is what you inwardly believe in or Trust in).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

IllipticallyDefined

Mon Jun-25-01 05:02 AM

  
101. "Why is Jesus and Lucifer both called the Bright and Morning Star?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

The fallen Bright and Morning Star of Isaiah 14:12/ Lucifer
Isa: 14: 12: How you have fallen from heaven, O STAR of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!(New American Standard

Who is the Fallen Star that brings death, (the reflection or son of Fallen angel Belial), the son of "Morning" (Sun God Baal/Satan), the bright "Morning Star" Lucifer.


I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches. I am the root and the spawn of David, and I am the bright Morning Revelations 22:16

If you search on the net you'll get allot of different viewpoints on this... such as The NIV version is attacking christians, and king james leaves out morning star... others like this one, are from jews trying to disprove christianity, but i want to see what you think, so please explain...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

rlc0923

Mon Jun-25-01 05:30 AM

  
102. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Jus asking, what do yall think about women in ministry or a womens position in the church period. I was checking out corinthians 11.5 and I think 14:35? This definitly isnt happening now!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
GALKA

Mon Jun-25-01 08:07 AM

  
105. "catching in the holy ghost"
In response to Reply # 102


          

is there a place in the bible surrounding this topic and is there any relation to having a nervous breakdown?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 08:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
126. "RE: Paul......"
In response to Reply # 102


          

>Jus asking, what do yall think
>about women in ministry or
>a womens position in the
>church period. I was checking
>out corinthians 11.5

In that particular time a woman exposing her hair was considered loose and lacking morals. There should be a distinction made between the meaning of the text and it's significance. The meaning is "what" it say to people in that culture, the significance is how it applies to our cultural situation today. In culture context it's imperative for women to wear a veil in church.

Also there is a difference in command and culture. Commands of Scripture are absolute (no matter what your culture is)- culture itself on the other hand is relative. Example most Christian do not greet with a Holy kiss anymore (IThes. 5: 26) There are principles behind these commands that are absolute (Dont disrespect your husband) but the practice is not.


and I
>think 14:35? This definitly isnt
>happening now!

In this passage Pual is not talking about a women's role in the church. He's talking about having orderly services and that women shouldn't disrupt the service (v.35) "...inquiring about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;" This "something" refers to things not orientated to church.
Paul doesn't forbid women to talk in church because in Icor11: 5
"he states how women should wear their veil while praying or prophesing in church." (paraphrased) What he does forbid is disrupting service by some ladies yappa de yapping with their husband, when they could yappa di yap with him about that stuff at home. Paul also forbid men to talk at certain times as well. (Icor 14: 28)


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

CROCODILE HUNTER

Mon Jun-25-01 11:38 AM

  
118. "Why all the christian attention?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Fo' really tho'

"What do I do? I HUNT CROCKS! And I smell a CROCK OF SHIT COOKING RIGHT HERE!" -Yours Truly

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 07:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
157. "The BEST one to answer that is..."
In response to Reply # 118


  

          

YOU because your reply shows that you're on they dick.

I mean, why even bother with another post if they are so insignificant in you & other people's lives?

Think about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mE__again
Charter member
5843 posts
Mon Jun-25-01 10:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
127. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

my first question:

matthew 27:46. about 3 o'clock, jesus shouted, "eli, eli. lama sabachthani," which means, "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"

what was the reason for him shouting this? why did he feel god had forsaken him? did this shout show jesus didnt have enough faith in god (so dude dosent even have complete faith)?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
131. "psalm 22"
In response to Reply # 127


          

>my first question:
>
>matthew 27:46. about 3 o'clock, jesus
>shouted, "eli, eli. lama sabachthani,"
>which means, "my god, my
>god, why have you forsaken
>me?"
>
>what was the reason for him
>shouting this? why did he
>feel god had forsaken him?
>did this shout show jesus
>didnt have enough faith in
>god (so dude dosent even
>have complete faith)?

Responce : Great question, heres your answer, I don't know how familiar you are with the psalms, but turn if you will to psalm 22. There you have david saying those exact same words that Jesus said while on the cross. Sometimes when people (especially Jews at that time) were in great dispair they would say God has forsaken me or God has forsaken Isreal in the old testament, that's the way David felt while he was being attacked by his enemies, but as you read psalms 22 you realize at the end God had not forsaken him at all. That is the same point that Jesus was making while on the cross. That while in a time such as this God had not forsaken him. So he qouted this scripture to the Jews to point them to that verse.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 03:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
128. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Song of Songs 4:11, 1:15, 2:14, 6:4-12, 7:1-8

Genesis 4:1

Is there such a thing as Romance in the bible. And is romantic love a neccissity for mariage....????

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
132. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 128


          

>Song of Songs 4:11, 1:15, 2:14,
>6:4-12, 7:1-8
>
>Genesis 4:1
>
>Is there such a thing as
>Romance in the bible. And
>is romantic love a neccissity
>for mariage....????
>
>peace...

Responce: It should be noted that sex isn't bad within its proper constructs, that is marriage. We as a society have demoralized it to make it become unholy because we have turned it into something of lust instead of intimate love for a spouse. God created sex for our pleasure, as Ed Young puts it in his book (pure sex) God was in delight when Adam and Eve had sex because God ordains sex within marriage. Also yes I think you should have romance within your marriage because that keeps the excitement going. You should also be aware of the fact that some theologians think song of songs is a symbolic view of God's intimacy with Isreal, while others think it's a love poem. If you want an expert opionion on the matter pock up Ed Young's pure sex its a pretty good book.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 06:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
136. "Yet"
In response to Reply # 132


          

Marriage is not the same then as it is now...
The only romance is within the bible is between Soloman and ONE of his many wives. Marriage definitely is not the same. As far as the sex issue, which was not really apart of the original question, it has been grossed due to society. Yet this society is the one that introduced romance into the equation of marriage. My question was whether it's biblical...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 09:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
138. "RE: huh??"
In response to Reply # 136


          

>Marriage is not the same then
>as it is now...

How is it different? Every one in the Bible had one wife until Lamech changed the game and married two. (Gen 4: 19) polygamy is not commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20: 14). The Bible records that it happened but God does commend it.

>The only romance is within the
>bible is between Soloman and
>ONE of his many wives.

It's the only romance noted. That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.


>Marriage definitely is not the
>same. As far as the
>sex issue, which was not
>really apart of the original
>question, it has been grossed
>due to society. Yet this
>society is the one that
>introduced romance into the equation
>of marriage. My question was
>whether it's biblical...

To have a romantic interlude with your husband or wife is perfectly OK.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 10:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
140. "RE: huh??"
In response to Reply # 138


          

>>Marriage is not the same then
>>as it is now...
>
>How is it different? Every one
>in the Bible had one
>wife until Lamech changed the
>game and married two. (Gen
>4: 19) polygamy is not
>commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20:
>14). The Bible records that
>it happened but God does
>commend it.

Isn't that the first bood????
And polygamy is not commended but it is exepted and prevalent...

>>The only romance is within the
>>bible is between Soloman and
>>ONE of his many wives.
>
>It's the only romance noted. That
>doesnt mean other husbands didnt
>romance their wife.

That was not the question...

>>Marriage definitely is not the
>>same. As far as the
>>sex issue, which was not
>>really apart of the original
>>question, it has been grossed
>>due to society. Yet this
>>society is the one that
>>introduced romance into the equation
>>of marriage. My question was
>>whether it's biblical...

>To have a romantic interlude with
>your husband or wife is
>perfectly OK.

Never said it wasn't, but romance is definitely not a necessity.
I digress...

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 01:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
141. "RE: okay"
In response to Reply # 140


          

>Isn't that the first bood????
>And polygamy is not commended but
>it is exepted and prevalent...

Excepted by Humans.... Not expected by God

>
>>>The only romance is within the
>>>bible is between Soloman and
>>>ONE of his many wives.
>>
>>It's the only romance noted. That
>>doesnt mean other husbands didnt
>>romance their wife.
>
>That was not the question...

Okay then can you please clarify for me, the question you ask?


>>>Marriage definitely is not the
>>>same. As far as the
>>>sex issue, which was not
>>>really apart of the original
>>>question, it has been grossed
>>>due to society. Yet this
>>>society is the one that
>>>introduced romance into the equation
>>>of marriage. My question was
>>>whether it's biblical... <~~~~~~~~~ (Pointing)
>
>>To have a romantic interlude with
>>your husband or wife is
>>perfectly OK.
>
>Never said it wasn't, but romance
>is definitely not a necessity. <~~~~~~~ (pointing pt. 2)

But didn't you ask if it was Biblical or Not. I didnt say you said it wasn't okay. I just wanna point you to the last sentence in your paragraph. Are you asking whether "romancing" your better half is biblical?? or If it's (romance) necessary in a Marriage? Is that where think there's a difference?







  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 04:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
143. "RE: corrections"
In response to Reply # 138


          

>How is it different? Every one
>in the Bible had one
>wife until Lamech changed the
>game and married two. (Gen
>4: 19) polygamy is not
>commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20:
>14). The Bible records that
>it happened but God does <~~~( this is suppose to be doesn't)
>commend it.

I had a typo

sorry

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 04:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
148. "clarifications, please.............."
In response to Reply # 138


          

Every one
>in the Bible had one
>wife until Lamech changed the
>game and married two. (Gen
>4: 19)

Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one Adah, and the name of the other Zillah

dont think he got the commandment from God? and how do you know he was the one that "changed the game", if there really was one

polygamy is not
>commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20:
>14).

Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

this verse doesnt even remotely imply for someone to not have two or more wives NOR does it imply that polygamy in NOT commendable by God. the verse says shalt not commit adultery. there is nothing conclusive in this commmandment for anything else besides that, right?

or are you going on your own feelings about marriage, adultery, and polygamy?

The Bible records that
>it happened but God does
>commend it.

maybe you can get deduce this from the NEW testament, but not the OLD one.

>>The only romance is within the
>>bible is between Soloman and
>>ONE of his many wives.

>It's the only romance noted.
>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.

ok. cant this same statement: "It's the only romance noted" be used above in reference to lamech being the first to have 2 wives. why could not those mentioned before him have more than one wife?

who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 08:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
166. "RE: sure"
In response to Reply # 148


          

>Every one
>>in the Bible had one
>>wife until Lamech changed the
>>game and married two. (Gen
>>4: 19)
>
>Genesis 4:19
>And Lamech took unto him two
>wives: the name of the
>one Adah, and the
>name of the other Zillah
>
>
>dont think he got the commandment
>from God? and how do
>you know he was the
>one that "changed the game",
>if there really was one

No lamech didnt get the commandment from God because if he did God would then be a sinner. Adultery is a sin. The act of being unfaithful to one's Hubby or Wife. Having more than one wife or husband is adultry. Matt 19: 9 "...I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (adultry), and marries another woman commits adultry."

>
>polygamy is not
>>commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20:
>>14).
>
>Exodus 20:14
>Thou shalt not commit adultery.

>this verse doesnt even remotely imply
>for someone to not have
>two or more wives NOR
>does it imply that polygamy
>in NOT commendable by God.
>the verse says shalt not
>commit adultery. there is nothing
>conclusive in this commmandment for
>anything else besides that, right?

polygamy is an adulterous act abduhu. If someone is married then decides to marry another woman that person is being unfaithful to his first wife. Therefore a polygamist is an adulterous person. Ex 20: 14 commands us not to commit adultry. If we commit adultry we are sinning. If God commends adultry then guess what abduhu....... God would be embracing something that he deemed unholy. Can God embrace unholy things abduhu? God of the Bible doesnt commend polygamy humans practiced it, The Bible records that humans practiced it, God does not commend adulterous acts like polygamy.

>
>
>or are you going on your
>own feelings about marriage, adultery,
>and polygamy?
>

Nope, but i think you are putting your own feelings about marrying more than one woman being okay when it's not.

>The Bible records that
>>it happened but God does <~~~~ that should be "doesn't" sorry
>>commend it.
>
>maybe you can get deduce this
>from the NEW testament, but
>not the OLD one.
>

The God of the New Testament is The God of the Old Testament. Humans practice polygamy Starting with Lamech (BC)...and continue to our present times (AD). Also God created One woman for adam, Eve. (Gen 1: 22) Now in Gen. 1: 24 ...Man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (Not Wives), and they (Husband and Wife) will be one Flesh. emphasis added.

>>>The only romance is within the
>>>bible is between Soloman and
>>>ONE of his many wives.
>
>>It's the only romance noted.
>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.
>
>ok. cant this same statement: "It's
>the only romance noted" be
>used above in reference to
>lamech being the first to
>have 2 wives. why could
>not those mentioned before him
>have more than one wife?

Nope, that would be reading into the text something that's not there (Referring to Lamech's situation).Romance on the other hand began with Adam and his One wife Eve (Gen 1: 28). Soloman's song of songs is very sensual and sexual book, but it's not a historical reference of "how" romance in a marriage began. In the case of lamech he's is the historical reference to when polygamy began.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 09:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
176. "the problem is this:"
In response to Reply # 166


          

you are not presenting CLEAR AND DECISIVE VERSES of what a marriage IS and ISNOT SUPPOSED TO BE. nor of what DIVORCE IS and ISNOT SUPPOSED TO BE. nor of HOW POLYGAMY IS or ISNOT A SIN. nor of the DEFINITION OF ADULTERY. until then, we could go one for days and days, TALKING about it, but not STATING WHAT THE BIBLE ITSELF SAYS.

you are merely interjecting your own thoughts and words into the situation, without providing PROOF or EVIDENCE for what you are saying.

>>Every one
>>>in the Bible had one
>>>wife until Lamech changed the
>>>game and married two. (Gen
>>>4: 19)
>>
>>Genesis 4:19
>>And Lamech took unto him two
>>wives: the name of the
>>one Adah, and the
>>name of the other Zillah
>>
>>
>>dont think he got the commandment
>>from God? and how do
>>you know he was the
>>one that "changed the game",
>>if there really was one
>
>No lamech didnt get the commandment
>from God because if he
>did God would then be
>a sinner.

i would comment on this one, but the comment that i have is irrelevent, seeing as how we both have different concepts and ideals of GOD.

Adultery is a
>sin.

agreed.

The act of being
>unfaithful to one's Hubby or
>Wife.

and "the act" is: commiting fornication, which is sexual intercourse w/o marriage, right? if so, wouldnt having sexual intercourse w/ another woman be okay, if a man was married to her?

Having more than one
>wife or husband is adultry.

how did you deduce this? certainly not from the verse below......

>Matt 19: 9 "...I tell
>you that anyone who divorces
>his wife, except for marital
>unfaithfulness (adultry), and marries another
>woman commits adultry."

so what does this verse say about a man who DOESNT DIVORCE his wife but gets another one? nothing.

>>
>>polygamy is not
>>>commended by the Bible,(Exodus 20:
>>>14).

>>Exodus 20:14
>>Thou shalt not commit adultery.
>
>>this verse doesnt even remotely imply
>>for someone to not have
>>two or more wives NOR
>>does it imply that polygamy
>>in NOT commendable by God.
>>the verse says shalt not
>>commit adultery. there is nothing
>>conclusive in this commmandment for
>>anything else besides that, right?
>
>polygamy is an adulterous act abduhu.

according to what verse? and if its in the new testament, that does not take prededence over what the old testament allowed in it day.

>If someone is married then
>decides to marry another woman
>that person is being unfaithful
>to his first wife.

according to what verse? not matthew 19.9. i addressed that above.

Therefore
>a polygamist is an adulterous
>person.

you got no verses from the old testament to PROVE it. and thats where those examples where taking place. not in the new one.

Ex 20: 14 commands
>us not to commit adultry.
>If we commit adultry we
>are sinning.
If God commends
>adultry then guess what abduhu.......
>God would be embracing something
>that he deemed unholy.

agreed, accept for the last sentence. but it is still not been proven that polygamy is adultery in the old testament.
btw, are you using the word command and commend interchangeably?
b/c theyre not interchangeable.

>Can
>God embrace unholy things abduhu?

what do you mean by embrace?

>God of the Bible doesnt
>commend polygamy humans practiced it,
>The Bible records that humans
>practiced it,

commend or command?


>God does not
>commend adulterous acts like polygamy.

show me where in the old testament, and i wont ask any more.
>
>
>>
>>
>>or are you going on your
>>own feelings about marriage, adultery,
>>and polygamy?
>>
>
>Nope, but i think you are
>putting your own feelings about
>marrying more than one woman
>being okay when it's not.

no, im just stating the WRITTEN FACTS. and the WRITTEN FACTS ARE that there are NO VERSES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT declaring polygamy A SIN AND ADULTERY.

>>The Bible records that
>>>it happened but God does <~~~~ that should be "doesn't" sorry
>>>commend it.
>>
>>maybe you can get deduce this
>>from the NEW testament, but
>>not the OLD one.
>>
>
>The God of the New Testament
>is The God of the
>Old Testament. Humans practice polygamy
>Starting with Lamech (BC)...and continue
>to our present times (AD).
>Also God created One woman
>for adam, Eve. (Gen 1:
>22) Now in Gen. 1:
>24 ...Man will leave his
>father and mother and be
>united to his wife (Not
>Wives), and they (Husband and
>Wife) will be one Flesh.
>emphasis added.
>
>>>>The only romance is within the
>>>>bible is between Soloman and
>>>>ONE of his many wives.
>>
>>>It's the only romance noted.
>>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.
>>
>>ok. cant this same statement: "It's
>>the only romance noted" be
>>used above in reference to
>>lamech being the first to
>>have 2 wives. why could
>>not those mentioned before him
>>have more than one wife?
>
>Nope, that would be reading into
>the text something that's not
>there (Referring to Lamech's situation).

but didnt you read into the text when you said:
>>>It's the only romance noted.
>>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.

which is why i said what i said? tell me you didnt read into it, just like my suggestion.

Romance
>on the other hand began
>with Adam and his One
>wife Eve (Gen 1: 28).

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

THAT IS ROMANCE?

In the
>case of lamech he's is
>the historical reference to when
>polygamy began.

how can you make that claim w/o reading into the text?
like you said about solomon:>>>It's the only romance noted.
>>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.

so could lamech's case be, right?
or is it b/c it is in the beginning of the bible that you dont thing that such a thing is possible?

who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 06:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
178. "RE: there's no problem in what i stated"
In response to Reply # 176


          

>you are not presenting CLEAR AND
>DECISIVE VERSES of what a
>marriage IS and ISNOT SUPPOSED
>TO BE.

Marriage: Woman and Man becoming one Flesh, in a Spiritual Committed, Public unification that is supposed to last for duration of that man's or woman's life. Having a Husband or Wife.

Gen 2: 22 - God made a women (one woman) from the rib He had taken out of man, and he bought her to man. emphasis added.

Adam and Eve's union created the standard of how God intented marriage to be monogamy not polygamy.

Gen 2: 24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother to be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.

Note united to his "wife" singular.


nor of what
>DIVORCE IS and ISNOT SUPPOSED
>TO BE.

Divorce- ending the bond of marriage; to free oneself from one's husband or wife. Ending the life long commitment of marriage.

Matt. 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultry.

Matt. 19 3-9 - Some Pharisees came to him to test him The asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?

"Havent you read" he replied "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will be one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then" They asked "did moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this away from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Marital infidelity another named for it adultery is one of the two reasons person could legally divorce their spouse (the second is desertion found in Icor 7). Now peep how the divored man or woman commits adultery if they "marry" again, if they divorced under different reasons other than the one God says that you can legally separate.

Also in (v 8) "... but it was not this way in the beginning" showing God's intent of how long a marriage is supposed to last. The standard of Marriage beginning with Adam and Eve.

Now being that Adam and Eve were the standard of marriage for humans. They were united one man, and one woman. A realtionship of monogamy (Gen 2: 24)



nor of HOW
>POLYGAMY IS or ISNOT A
>SIN.

Polygamy - The practice of having more than one wife or husband at one time.

A polygamist is unfaithful to the union of his first wife, which according to gen: 2: 24 that the two (Man and Woman) will make one flesh. Not the three will make one flesh or the 40 wives and one man made one flesh.

And scripture warns in Deut 17: 17 "He must not take many wives or his heart will be led astray..."

Now Look at the context of divorce In Matthew 19 and 5: 32. How are these re-married people adulterous, when sexual acts between a hubby and wife is okay. The logical response is that their falls outside of God's intended plan for marriage. (Gen 2: 24. Gen 4: 1, Gen: 4: 25)
Polygamy falls outside of God's intended plan for marriage. Any additions to your wifey belt then becomes adultery.


nor of the DEFINITION
>OF ADULTERY. until then, we
>could go one for days
>and days, TALKING about it,
>but not STATING WHAT THE
>BIBLE ITSELF SAYS.

Adultery- being unfaithful to one's husband or wife.


>you are merely interjecting your own
>thoughts and words into the
>situation, without providing PROOF or
>EVIDENCE for what you are
>saying.

Nope im not interjecting. And im providing more than enough proof according to biblical doctrine.

>>>Every one
>>>>in the Bible had one
>>>>wife until Lamech changed the
>>>>game and married two. (Gen
>>>>4: 19)
>>>
>>>Genesis 4:19
>>>And Lamech took unto him two
>>>wives: the name of the
>>>one Adah, and the
>>>name of the other Zillah
>
>i would comment on this one,
>but the comment that i
>have is irrelevent, seeing as
>how we both have different
>concepts and ideals of GOD.

And i believe your starting to see the God of the Qur'an is Not the God of the Bible. So ultimately only one of them can exist. choose wisely.

>
>Adultery is a
>>sin.
>
>agreed.

If you truly agreed you would see how Polygamy falls under the category of Adultery, which is a sin.


>and "the act" is: commiting fornication,
>which is sexual intercourse w/o
>marriage, right? if so, wouldnt
>having sexual intercourse w/ another
>woman be okay, if a
>man was married to her?

Fornication is sex before marriage. Neither the Man or Woman is married together they are just having a smutfest.
No the man would be going outside of God's intended plan for marriage by gaining a second wife.

>>Matt 19: 9 "...I tell
>>you that anyone who divorces
>>his wife, except for marital
>>unfaithfulness (adultry), and marries another
>>woman commits adultry."
>
>so what does this verse say
>about a man who DOESNT
>DIVORCE his wife but gets
>another one? nothing.

Who's interjecting their own thoughts now? (blankly stares at the screen) Now wear in the Bible does it state that a man shouldnt marry a man, or that a man can't marry a horse. Where does the standard of How humans should marry come from. (Gen 2: 24) God created One man and One Woman and united them as one flesh in marriage. monogamous realtionship not polygamous.

>>polygamy is an adulterous act abduhu.

>according to what verse? and if
>its in the new testament,
>that does not take prededence
>over what the old testament
>allowed in it day.

Exodus 20: 14------


>according to what verse? not matthew
>19.9. i addressed that above.

Matt 19 points to the standard of marriage One woman, one man.


Therefore
a polygamist is still an adulterous
person according to God of the Bible.

>you got no verses from the
>old testament to PROVE it.
>and thats where those examples
>where taking place. not in
>the new one.

Duet 17: 17 warns against it

I Kings 11: 4 shows how polygamy effected solomon and turned his heart away from God.

Exodus 20: 14 One of the ten commandments

Gen. 2: 24 The standard of marriage that God intented.

>Ex 20: 14 commands
>>us not to commit adultry.
>>If we commit adultry we
>>are sinning.
>If God commends
>>adultry then guess what abduhu.......
>>God would be embracing something
>>that he deemed unholy.
>
>agreed, accept for the last sentence.
>but it is still not
>been proven that polygamy is
>adultery in the old testament.
>
>btw, are you using the word
>command and commend interchangeably?
>b/c theyre not interchangeable.

No im not using them interchangeably. I know there significances
they are there for a reason.


>>Can
>>God embrace unholy things abduhu?
>
>what do you mean by embrace?

Embrace- to accept or take upwillingly.
God of the Bible can't be unholy and let alone agree to them.

>
>>God of the Bible doesnt
>>commend polygamy humans practiced it,
>>The Bible records that humans
>>practiced it,
>
>commend or command?

The funny thing is that both words can be used here in this context. God of the Bible didn't command men to marry more than one wife. (Gen. 2: 24) And God doesn't commend their practice of polygamy either


>>God does not
>>commend adulterous acts like polygamy.
>
>show me where in the old
>testament, and i wont ask
>any more.

Deut 17: 17

Gen. 2: 24

>no, im just stating the WRITTEN
>FACTS. and the WRITTEN FACTS
>ARE that there are NO
>VERSES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
>declaring polygamy A SIN AND
>ADULTERY.


If you're look for Bold print with dancing wives around a passage that says polygamy is adultery....then nope it's not there,(sidenote: Also the passage that says a man can't marry his 98 eclipse is in there either) but through God of the Bible's intended plan that went awry due to humans, one can determine that more than one wife doesn't follow God's plan. (Gen 2: 24) Not following God's plan means disobedience......Disobedience means sin hmmm now which one can polygamy fall under (points to commandment 7) and the following passages point there as well:
Genesis: 2: 24
Dueteronomy 17: 17
IKings 11:2-4
Malachi. 2: 16
Matthew. 5: 31
Matthew. 19



The God of the New Testament
is The God of the
Old Testament.

>but didnt you read into the
>text when you said:
>>>>It's the only romance noted.
>>>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.
>
>which is why i said what
>i said? tell me you
>didnt read into it, just
>like my suggestion.

no i didn't read anything into it. Song of songs is the first biblical book that talk of a sensual, sexual, passion, that should be within a marriage (God's intended plan). Like i said before this is not a historical starting point of romance in a marriage. Our standard being Adam and eve so ultimately that's the historical stating point of romance in a marriage.
Lamech is the historical starting point of Polygamy.


>Romance
>>on the other hand began
>>with Adam and his One
>>wife Eve (Gen 1: 28).
>
>Genesis 1:28
>And God blessed them, and God
>said unto them, Be fruitful,
>and multiply, and replenish the
>earth, and subdue it: and
>have dominion over the fish
>of the sea, and over
>the fowl of the air,
>and over every living thing
>that moveth upon the earth.
>
>
>THAT IS ROMANCE?

scroll up for this response

>In the
>>case of lamech he's is
>>the historical reference to when
>>polygamy began.
>
>how can you make that claim
>w/o reading into the text?

Easy polygamy wasn't a common practice Isolating Lamech's shows how God's intended plan had gone crooked. Gen 4: 23 Lamech took for himself two wives (paraphrased)

>like you said about solomon:>>>It's the only romance noted.
>>>>That doesnt mean other husbands didnt romance their wife.
>
>so could lamech's case be, right?

nope......

>or is it b/c it is
>in the beginning of the
>bible that you dont thing
>that such a thing is
>possible?

Alot of things are possible... if they happened or not is another story. Like is it possible for a muslim woman to have more than one husband at a time? If not why the double standard?
If a muslim woman married you but then decided to marry a second hubby what would you call it then? Being unfaithful to her first hubby abduhu by adding a second hubby. Which in a nut shell is adultery.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 04:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
180. "High ranking Polygamists in the Bible"
In response to Reply # 178


          

>>>>Every one
>>>>>in the Bible had one
>>>>>wife until Lamech changed the
>>>>>game and married two. (Gen
>>>>>4. 19)
>>>>
>>>>Genesis 4.19
>>>>And Lamech took unto him two
>>>>wives: the name of the
>>>>one Adah, and the
>>>>name of the other Zillah
>>
>>i would comment on this one,
>>but the comment that i
>>have is irrelevent, seeing as
>>how we both have different
>>concepts and ideals of GOD.
>
>And i believe your starting to
>see the God of the
>Qur'an is Not the God
>of the Bible. So ultimately
>only one of them can
>exist. choose wisely.

no. i just know that we would go around in circles with it. and since you believe that Allah and God are two different entities, how do you explain this: http://www.aboutislam.org

it seems there are some christians who do believe that they are one and the same. or, either they are trying to fool muslims.

and if you go through the site, you will see that they are not saying anything different than you, in regards to the bible and its message.

back to the topic............

>Therefore
>a polygamist is still an adulterous
>
>person according to God of the
>Bible.

ok. lets say i accept this based on the PROOFS AND EVIDENCES you have shown me.
how do you reconcile the fact that major key figures in the bible had more than one wife:

1. Abraham, whose "seeds would be a blessed nation" had 2. and b4 you say he didnt, look real close in genesis, real close. (Genesis 16.3)

2. Esau had two.(Genesis 36.6)

3. Jacob had four: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah. (gen- ch. 29-ch. 30)

4. David had more than one. (1 Chronicles 14.3)

5. Solomon (do i need to post verses?.)

so either:
1. God didnt Allow it, and all these individuals (peace be upon them all) committed adultery,
2. God allowed it. but, only for them,
3. God allowed it at sometime, but forbade it later, or
4. God allowed it then, and still does today.

which is it?

who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 05:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
181. "exactly"
In response to Reply # 180


          


https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 07:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
185. "RE: High ranking Polygamists in the Bible"
In response to Reply # 180


          


>
>no. i just know that we
>would go around in circles
>with it. and since you
>believe that Allah and God
>are two different entities, how
>do you explain this: http://www.aboutislam.org

Response: I'll check the site today, I hope its not to long.
>
>
>it seems there are some christians
>who do believe that they
>are one and the same.
>or, either they are trying
>to fool muslims.

Response : I'll check it out.
>
>and if you go through the
>site, you will see that
>they are not saying anything
>different than you, in regards
>to the bible and its
>message.
>
>back to the topic............
>
>>Therefore
>>a polygamist is still an adulterous
>>
>>person according to God of the
>>Bible.
>
>ok. lets say i accept this
>based on the PROOFS AND
>EVIDENCES you have shown me.
>
>how do you reconcile the fact
>that major key figures in
>the bible had more than
>one wife:
>
>1. Abraham, whose "seeds would be
>a blessed nation" had 2.
>and b4 you say he
>didnt, look real close in
>genesis, real close. (Genesis 16.3)
>
>
>2. Esau had two.(Genesis 36.6)
>
>3. Jacob had four: Leah, Rachel,
>Bilhah, and Zilpah. (gen- ch.
>29-ch. 30)
>
>4. David had more than one.
>(1 Chronicles 14.3)
>
>5. Solomon (do i need to
>post verses?.)
>
>so either:
>1. God didnt Allow it, and
>all these individuals (peace be
>upon them all) committed adultery,

Response : Bingo, thats right they committed adultry.( 1 Chron 14:3) these men paid dearly for there sins. The kingdom of Solomon split up into Judah and Isreal. And the sword never left the house of David.
>
>2. God allowed it. but, only
>for them,

Responce: No, God never apporved of this, just tolerated it. The same way he tolerates our sin today. Sometimes people ask me why does'nt God get rid of all the evil in the world, my response is God would have to get rid of all of us.

>3. God allowed it at sometime,
>but forbade it later, or

Response: No, God does not change.

>4. God allowed it then, and
>still does today.

Response: Nope,

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 08:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
186. "What about Abraham??"
In response to Reply # 185


          

He lived for over a century ....

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 08:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
187. "As for Solomon"
In response to Reply # 186


          

His kingdom was prosperous and reached unprecedented heights...


https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 05:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
192. "RE: As for Solomon"
In response to Reply # 187


          

>His kingdom was prosperous and reached
>unprecedented heights...

Response: Yeah until he let his wives led him astray, then God punished him. The kingdom of Isreal split into two sections Judah and Isreal during the reign of his son Jeraboam I.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 07:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
195. "name mixup"
In response to Reply # 192


          

>Response: Yeah until he let his
>wives led him astray, then
>God punished him. The kingdom
>of Isreal split into two
>sections Judah and Isreal during
>the reign of his son
>Jeraboam I.


Response: Actually it was Rehoboam that was Solomon's son. 1 kings 11:11 So the Lord said to Solomon since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees which I command you. I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you.... Nevertheless, for the sake of David I will not do it during your life time.

Abraham did not have the Law of Moses so he did not recieve the curses of the Law even though he still sinned.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
204. "see"
In response to Reply # 192


          

My understanding is that he was led astray and allowed the women to cloud is focus on God. No so much that he had this many women, but he allowed the women to become his main focus and that should never happen...

peace..

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 05:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
191. "RE: What about Abraham??"
In response to Reply # 186


          

>He lived for over a century
>....

Response: Yes he sinned also.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 05:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
193. "No, God does not change."
In response to Reply # 185


  

          

HTP

Hmmm

In response to was "incest" accepted at one point in time, you said:
From post #10. "RE: Incest: Good or Bad?":
Responce: first there was no command in Cain's day not to marry a close relative. The commandment in Lev 18 came 1000 years later. Since the human race started with Adam and Eve Cain had no one else to marry except a close relative.

For this statement:
"3. God allowed it at sometime, but forbade it later,"

You said: "Response: No, God does not change."

QUESTIONS:

So the god of the Bible never allowed "polygamy?" (Since when exactly.)

Since not having a prohibition for one thing and THEN making a commandment for it, IS AN EXAMPLE OF CHANGE, how does the god of the Bible NOT "change?"

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 07:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
194. "RE: No, God does not change."
In response to Reply # 193


          

>HTP
>
>Hmmm
>
>In response to was "incest" accepted
>at one point in time,
>you said:
>From post #10. "RE: Incest: Good
>or Bad?":
>Responce: first there was no command
>in Cain's day not to
>marry a close relative. The
>commandment in Lev 18 came
>1000 years later. Since the
>human race started with Adam
>and Eve Cain had no
>one else to marry except
>a close relative.
>
>For this statement:
>"3. God allowed it at sometime,
>but forbade it later,"
>
>You said: "Response: No, God does
>not change."
>
>QUESTIONS:
>
>So the god of the Bible
>never allowed "polygamy?" (Since when
>exactly.)
>
>Since not having a prohibition for
>one thing and THEN making
>a commandment for it, IS
>AN EXAMPLE OF CHANGE, how
>does the god of the
>Bible NOT "change?"

Response: No he does'nt change. This what we call progressive revelation. The principle of progressive revelation

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 07:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
199. "sorry computer probs"
In response to Reply # 194


          

>
>Response: No he doesn't change. This is
>what we call progressive revelation.
>The principle of progressive revelation means that God does not reveal everthing at once, nor does He always lay down the same condition foe every period. God can change anything that does not involve a contridiction or that does not go against his unchangeble nature. God can change non moral things without any apparent or stated reason. Sometimes God changes things because of the changing condition of humanity. ( such as the law of incest) Adam and Eve had to populate the world somehow,but as sin crept in God made incest a violation knowing the affects of it, this was part of a plan designed for us. That's why the law changed perse; it was set for a different part of humanity.

There is also a rule in studying scripture that everything recorded in the Bible is not approved by the Bible, heres where polygamy comes in, it is mentioned in scripture but God never accepts it only tolerates it like he does all of out sins.
>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 04:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
202. "how did they pay?"
In response to Reply # 185


          

>>ok. lets say i accept this
>>based on the PROOFS AND
>>EVIDENCES you have shown me.
>>
>>how do you reconcile the fact
>>that major key figures in
>>the bible had more than
>>one wife:
>>
>>1. Abraham, whose "seeds would be
>>a blessed nation" had 2.
>>and b4 you say he
>>didnt, look real close in
>>genesis, real close. (Genesis 16.3)
>>
>>
>>2. Esau had two.(Genesis 36.6)
>>
>>3. Jacob had four: Leah, Rachel,
>>Bilhah, and Zilpah. (gen- ch.
>>29-ch. 30)
>>
>>4. David had more than one.
>>(1 Chronicles 14.3)
>>
>>5. Solomon (do i need to
>>post verses?.)
>>
>>so either:
>>1. God didnt Allow it, and
>>all these individuals (peace be
>>upon them all) committed adultery,
>
>Response : Bingo, thats right they
>committed adultry.( 1 Chron 14:3)
>these men paid dearly for
>there sins. The kingdom of
>Solomon split up into Judah
>and Isreal. And the sword
>never left the house of
>David.

how did they pay? i would like verses or verse numbers, instead of paraprases, please. here is the link to get them from: http://www.theunboundbible.org

above, you answered about solomon and david, but what about abraham, jacob, and esau?

what happened to them?

>>2. God allowed it. but, only
>>for them,
>
>Responce: No, God never apporved of
>this, just tolerated it. The
>same way he tolerates our
>sin today. Sometimes people ask
>me why does'nt God get
>rid of all the evil
>in the world, my response
>is God would have to
>get rid of all of
>us.

ok. so if God tolerated it as you say, why did they have to "pay dearly", as you mentioned above? surely if God was tolerant about it, they wouldnt have had to pay dearly. maybe pay, but not pay dearly.

>>3. God allowed it at sometime,
>>but forbade it later, or
>
>Response: No, God does not change.

see solarus' question below.



who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 05:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
210. "RE: here's some ways"
In response to Reply # 202


          

>how did they pay? i would
>like verses or verse numbers,
>instead of paraprases, please.


but what about abraham,
>jacob, and esau?
what happened to them?

Abram (Abraham) - House was in turmoil between Sarai (Sarah) and Hagar. (Gen.16: 4-6, Gen.21 9-12)

Esau openly dishonored his father and married a canaanite woman (Gen 28: 8) also his other wives were a source of grief to his parents (Gen:26: 35)

Jacob was tricked (Gen. 29: 22-25) into his adultery by Leban. Jacob wanted to marry Rachel (Gen 29: 18)Jacob was a servant to Leban a extra seven years due to it. (Gen. 29: 27)
Jacob didnt love Leah (29: 30-31) He a turmoil within his household (Gen. 30: 1) Rachel was jealous of her sister's blessing of child birth.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 04:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
248. "but what really happened to them?"
In response to Reply # 210


          

>>how did they pay? i would
>>like verses or verse numbers,
>>instead of paraprases, please.
>
>
>but what about abraham,
>>jacob, and esau?
>what happened to them?
>
>Abram (Abraham) - House was in
>turmoil between Sarai (Sarah) and
>Hagar. (Gen.16: 4-6, Gen.21 9-12)

Genesis 16.4
And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Genesis 16.5
And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Genesis 16.6
But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

and,

Genesis 21.9
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Genesis 21.10
Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac.
Genesis 21.11
And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
Genesis 21.12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

i dont see any turmoil. maybe marrital relations problems, jealousy or behalf of the barren, but no turmoil.
and even if you say that abraham was "grevious", God told him not to be (gen. 21.12). so what kind of "pay" or punishment is that?
God makes him grevious, then tells him not to be?!?

so where is the real "pay",punishment, grief, etc... for him having two wives?
where was he made to "pay dearly" for his polygamy?




>Esau openly dishonored his father
>and married a canaanite woman
>(Gen 28: 8)

Genesis 28:8
And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;

he didnt marry from the canaanites. what are you talikng about here? if he did, then why did he "went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife", after seeing that "the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father"?

or are you saying that ismael's descendants were the canaanites? b/c the preceeding verse says that he took from ismael's offspring.

Genesis 2
Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

if youre not saying that, then he didnt dishonor nor disobey his father.

also his
>other wives were a source
>of grief to his parents
>(Gen:26: 35)

Genesis 26:34
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
Genesis 26:35
Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

ok. now i get it. but guess what? the other wives he took earlier were not from the canaanites.

alot of ppl dishonor their parents and their wives are sources of grief to their parents. that aint no punishment on them. all of the things you named would be "payment" or punishment to his father and mother (who didnot deserve it), not him. so how did he pay? what happened to him?
where was he made to "pay dearly" for his polygamy?




>Jacob was tricked (Gen. 29: 22-25)
>into his adultery by Leban.

how so?

Genesis 29:22
And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
Genesis 29:23
And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
Genesis 29:24
And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid an handmaid.
Genesis 29:25
And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it Leah: and he said to Laban, What this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

he was tricked into MARRYING leah, and yes he married her, as was the reason he worked for those seven years. he wasnt married b4 her, so how could he commit adultery?

>Jacob wanted to marry Rachel
>(Gen 29: 18)Jacob was a
>servant to Leban a extra
>seven years due to it.
>(Gen. 29: 27)

thats right. but instead laban tricked him into MARRYING LEAH, not just sleeping with her.

>Jacob didnt love Leah (29: 30-31)

correct.
>He a turmoil within his
>household (Gen. 30: 1)Rachel
>was jealous of her sister's
>blessing of child birth.

Genesis 30:1
And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.

again, more marrital relations problems and jealousy on behalf of barren women. how is this punishment for him? seems like stress for them, not him.
where was he made to "pay" for his polygamy?

and what about the other two: bilhah and zilpah? i guess everything was cool with them, huh? and dont tell me they were not wives b/c i provided the verse to back up my claim.

so where is the "turmoil" between them?
where was he made to "pay dearly" for his polygamy w/ them?


no where did you tell me how these brothers were made to "pay dearly" for their polygamy. you told me how they had marrital relations problems and how certain wives were jealous of one another b/c they were barren and the other was not. but this is not reflective of a "pay dearly" punishment of behalf of those brothers for their polygamy.

i dont think a wife screaming here and there, a little or a lot of jealousy from a wife here and there, is grounds for saying that this was somekind of punishment on them for being polygamists. this happens everyday to monogamous couples. so is it a punishment on them too, for something that they havent done, i.e.- polygamy?

so, all in all, God allowed it then, just as he does today.

nobody still didnt address this: http://www.aboutislam.com

these christians are saying Allah of the qur'an and God of the bible are one in the same. so what maks them wrong and YOU right?
they are using a bible just like yours to prove that they are the same.

hell, even Bush said yesterday, on the 4th of july, that they were the same, in front of millions (including t.v. viewers)!!!!!
how do you explain that?


who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 09:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
249. "RE:"
In response to Reply # 248


          

>i dont see any turmoil. maybe
>marrital relations problems, jealousy or
>behalf of the barren, but
>no turmoil.

So you are saying marrital problems are good? Yummy and tasty marrital problems on a bun of slap-happy adultery?


>>Esau openly dishonored his father
>>and married a canaanite woman
>>(Gen 28: 8)
>
>Genesis 28:8
>And Esau seeing that the daughters
>of Canaan pleased not Isaac
>his father;

>he didnt marry from the canaanites.
>what are you talikng about
>here? if he did, then
>why did he "went Esau
>unto Ishmael, and took unto
>the wives which he had
>Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael
>Abraham's son, the sister of
>Nebajoth, to be his wife",
>after seeing that "the daughters
>of Canaan pleased not Isaac
>his father"?

Yes Esau did marry the from the canaanite women (Gen. 36: 2)
"Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan:..."
The previous Passage (Gen. 28: 8) shows how esau's action was blantant disobedience to his parents.


>Genesis 2
>Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and
>took unto the wives which
>he had Mahalath the daughter
>of Ishmael Abraham's son, the
>sister of Nebajoth, to be
>his wife.
>
>if youre not saying that, then
>he didnt dishonor nor disobey
>his father.

See Gen. 36: 2

>ok. now i get it. but
>guess what? the other wives
>he took earlier were not
>from the canaanites.

See Gen. 36: 2

>alot of ppl dishonor their parents
>and their wives are sources
>of grief to their parents.
>that aint no punishment on
>them. all of the
>things you named would be
>"payment" or punishment to his
>father and mother (who didnot
>deserve it), not him. so
>how did he pay? what
>happened to him?
>where was he made to "pay
>dearly" for his polygamy?

Are you saying Family problems are good too? BB-Q baked family arguements with a side of coleslaw.


>>Jacob was tricked (Gen. 29: 22-25)
>>into his adultery by Leban.
>
>how so?
>
>Genesis 29:22
>And Laban gathered together all the
>men of the place, and
>made a feast.
>Genesis 29:23
>And it came to pass in
>the evening, that he took
>Leah his daughter, and brought
>her to him; and he
>went in unto her.
>Genesis 29:24
>And Laban gave unto his daughter
>Leah Zilpah his maid
>an handmaid.
>Genesis 29:25
>And it came to pass, that
>in the morning, behold, it
> Leah: and he said
>to Laban, What this
>thou hast done unto me?
>did not I serve with
>thee for Rachel? wherefore then
>hast thou beguiled me?
>
>he was tricked into MARRYING leah,
>and yes he married her,
>as was the reason he
>worked for those seven years.
>he wasnt married b4 her,
>so how could he commit
>adultery?

Because he married her sister buddy He worked 14 years all together. But he only wanted Rachel...so he worked 7 years to get Her (Rachel) but instead ......*POOF*....in his bed it's LEAH!!!!! The sister with the weak eyes.......So now he's stuck but in love with Rachel so to get with her he has to be Leban's servant for another 7 years. The adultery is committed when he married the one whom he loved.


>>Jacob wanted to marry Rachel
>>(Gen 29: 18)Jacob was a
>>servant to Leban a extra
>>seven years due to it.
>>(Gen. 29: 27)
>
>thats right. but instead laban tricked
>him into MARRYING LEAH, not
>just sleeping with her.

huh??


>>Jacob didnt love Leah (29: 30-31)

Do you think this is Good too.....if so then i understand why ladies are turning you down on the marriage tip. Yikes Abduhu.


>again, more marrital relations problems and
>jealousy on behalf of barren
>women. how is this punishment
>for him?

I take it you've never seen Marrital problems or what ills jealousy can cause. Can you blame these barren women who's not getting a fair amount of love and affection?

>and what about the other two:
>bilhah and zilpah? i guess
>everything was cool with them,
>huh? and dont tell me
>they were not wives b/c
>i provided the verse to
>back up my claim.

I know the maid servants were married to Jacob but guess what he smutted them too. i never said these to were his wives.


>no where did you tell me
>how these brothers were made
>to "pay dearly" for their
>polygamy. you told me how
>they had marrital relations problems
>and how certain wives were
>jealous of one another b/c
>they were barren and the
>other was not. but this
>is not reflective of a
>"pay dearly" punishment of behalf
>of those brothers for their
>polygamy.

Wait until you have marrital problems and you may change that view.

>so, all in all, God allowed
>it then, just as he
>does today.

Yep God allows or tolerate sin but God doesn't Command us to sin or Commend our sin. Adultery is a sin. Having more than one wife is adultery. (Ex. 20: 14) God commands us not to commit Adultery.



>nobody still didnt address this: http://www.aboutislam.com

I think Osoclasi and I gave tons of Info on how they are different. In your posts about Allah's will...God in the flesh? and so on

Short answer - Is God of the Qur'an a Triune God? One God reveal in Three Persons...Father,Son, And Holy Spirit.....it's pretty safe to say that you would answer this question with a No.....this is one of the many reason how...The God of the Qur'an is not the God of the Bible.

>
>these christians are saying Allah of
>the qur'an and God of
>the bible are one in
>the same. so what maks
>them wrong and YOU right?

Well if they think that YHWH and Allah are one and the same then ultimately how can they accept Christ's deity (Christ is YHWH)....Since the Qur'an denies Christ's deity. Is Christ Allah? If you say no...one of us has to be right. Christ claimed to be God on numerous occasion and He proved himself to be who he said he was.

>they are using a bible just
>like yours to prove that
>they are the same.

There are similarities in the Bible and Qur'an but......There are more differences than similarites. One main difference is How God of the universe is revealed. The One revealed in the Bible is not the One revealed in the Qur'an.


>hell, even Bush said yesterday, on
>the 4th of july, that
>they were the same, in
>front of millions (including t.v.
>viewers)!!!!!
>how do you explain that?

Abduhu you ought to be ashamed for this statement.......Even Bush said it.......Mayyyyun......

Anyhoo back to the point Multiple wives = Adultery.
And you failed to address a question of mine.......

Dearest abduhu if you and a muslim sister with Oprah money got married, then a couple of years later she married like three guys, on some elizabeth taylor type stuff....would you still be quick to say everything is cool?

Polygamy = Adultery..... Adultery = sin

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
abduhu
Charter member
1734 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 11:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
252. "RE: RUN FROM WHAT'S HAPPENIN'................"
In response to Reply # 249


          

>So you are saying marrital problems
>are good? Yummy and tasty
>marrital problems on a bun
>of slap-happy adultery?

no. but they most certainly are not "pay dearly" as if somebody lost their eyesight, got a limb cut off, suffered with diseases for the rest of their lives.....thats what i call "pay dearly".

>>alot of ppl dishonor their parents
>>and their wives are sources
>>of grief to their parents.
>>that aint no punishment on
>>them. all of the
>>things you named would be
>>"payment" or punishment to his
>>father and mother (who didnot
>>deserve it), not him. so
>>how did he pay? what
>>happened to him?
>>where was he made to "pay
>>dearly" for his polygamy?
>
>Are you saying Family problems are
>good too? BB-Q baked family
>arguements with a side of
>coleslaw.

see above.


>Because he married her sister buddy



>>>Jacob wanted to marry Rachel
>>>(Gen 29: 18)Jacob was a
>>>servant to Leban a extra
>>>seven years due to it.
>>>(Gen. 29: 27)
>>
>>thats right. but instead laban tricked
>>him into MARRYING LEAH, not
>>just sleeping with her.
>
>huh??

see the one line of yours i left up above all by its self. and if you are "huh"in' about the "just sleeping" part, you made it seem as though thats all that he did, and that he didnot marry her.


>>>Jacob didnt love Leah (29: 30-31)
>
>Do you think this is Good
>too.....if so then i understand
>why ladies are turning you
>down on the marriage tip.
>Yikes Abduhu.

what are you talking about. i hope not the post that i started. lol. that was an attempt to discuss the plagues of marriage here in america. apperently someone didnt get it. besides, im married already
>
>>again, more marrital relations problems and
>>jealousy on behalf of barren
>>women. how is this punishment
>>for him?
>
>I take it you've never seen
>Marrital problems or what ills
>jealousy can cause.

yes i have. see way up above.

Can you
>blame these barren women who's
>not getting a fair amount
>of love and affection?

how do you know who got what and when? being barren is not on the man, its on the woman. if they spent every waking moments w/ them, it wouldnt matter b/c they were barren, not the men.
and if the bible meant anything other than thos women being barren, then it should have said so.

>>and what about the other two:
>>bilhah and zilpah? i guess
>>everything was cool with them,
>>huh? and dont tell me
>>they were not wives b/c
>>i provided the verse to
>>back up my claim.
>
>I know the maid servants were
>married to Jacob but guess
>what he smutted them too.
>i never said these to
>were his wives.

are you saying you never said they were or are you saying you never said they werent? b/c either way you still didnot address the so-called punishment that he was supposed to get for those wives, yes wives.

>>nobody still didnt address this: http://www.aboutislam.com
>
>I think Osoclasi and I gave
>tons of Info on how
>they are different. In your
>posts about Allah's will...God in
>the flesh? and so on

his information was not based on the correct perspective according to islam as practiced by prophet muhammad (saws), and not sects and offshoots. goto: http://www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3054&forum=DCForumID1&omm=351 , for clarification.

i guess you nor him didnt see it. or either you saw it and agreed to it.


>Anyhoo back to the point Multiple
>wives = Adultery.
>And you failed to address a
>question of mine.......

i failed to address it b/c it was not the subject at hand. the subject at hand was multiple wives in CHRISTIANITY, not multiple husbands in ISLAM. however i will entertain it here........


for the example below lets use real live ppl, say.......me and my wife

>Dearest abduhu if you and a
>muslim sister with Oprah money
>got married, then a couple
>of years later she married
>like three guys, on some
>elizabeth taylor type stuff....would you
>still be quick to say
>everything is cool?

of course i wouldnt be cool with it. are you crazy?











but wait.......why wouldnt i be?!!!???
b/c there is no injunction in the qur'an for it.

however, if there was, i might not be thrilled with it, but i would not justify my feelings by way of saying the qur'an meant something else when it said that. just like my wife might not be thrilled about me getting another wife, but she would not justify HER feelings by way of saying the qur'an meant something else when it said that. why? b/c muslims dont pick and choose between what they want and dont want. rather, muslims "hear and obey"!!!

2:285 The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

And call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, and His covenant, which He ratified with you, when ye said: "We hear and we obey": And fear Allah, for Allah knoweth well the secrets of your hearts.

24:51 The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity.

and why do we "hear and obey"?

33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

if we had an opinion about injunctions in the qur'an, probably no muslim woman, execpt for the truly faithful, would opt to wear a head cover. and no man, execpt for the truly faithful, would wear his beard.

and since there is no injunction for it (multiple husbands)in the qur'an, and since "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision", my wife wouldnt do it, lest she be "on a clearly wrong Path", in which i would divorce her immediately.

just like she would divorce me if i went against Allah's injunctions and stopped praying, fasting, believing, etc........

and she has already told me she would divorce me if i stopped praying, so there is no doubt in my mind the sincerety of my wife towards Allah's injunctions.

so, because muslims "hear and obey" what is in the qur'an, and there is no injunction in the qur'an for multiple husbands, it will never happen. period.

i hope this answered your question.

who is Prophet Muhammad -salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (peace be upon him)? click here to read his biography entitled, "Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum" (The Sealed Nectar) :
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/

Narrated Aisha (Prophet Muhammad's wife):
The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

subhaanakallahumma (Glory be to you, Oh Allah), wabihamdika (and I praise You). ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta (I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except You). astaghfiruka (I seek Your forgiveness), wa attuubu ilaika (and I turn to You in Repentance).


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
214. "RE: how did they pay?"
In response to Reply # 202


          




g
>
>above, you answered about solomon and
>david, but what about abraham,
>jacob, and esau?
>
>what happened to them?

Response: Jennyfer already responded to these so I'll answer the rest. If you want more just ask.

>ok. so if God tolerated it
>as you say, why did
>they have to "pay dearly",
>as you mentioned above? surely
>if God was tolerant about
>it, they wouldnt have had
>to pay dearly. maybe pay,
>but not pay dearly.

Response: I really think this question is kind of self eplainatory . They were punished as a result of breaking the Mosiac Law. In the Law, it tells of the consequences of breaking the Law( Duet 28). As I told you earlier God is a God of justice he cannot forgive without punishing sins. The punishment for adultry in the old testament was death, they deserved death, but God tolerated there sin. Why? Because God's plan was higher than there sin, this is what we mean by the grace of God. God uses incapable men to fufill his will.


>>Response: No, God does not change.
>
>see solarus' question below.

Response: Read my post on progressive revalation it under " sorry I had computer problems." This will clear up his question.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 07:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
158. ""Huh" is right!!!"
In response to Reply # 138


  

          

You can't be serious...How is marriage different? Try age restriction.

Polygamy is looked down upon by God??? What?! Leave your estrogen out of it. God looked upon Abram, Moses, and David (until his fall) with FAVOR...Do I have to quote the Bible for that?

It is against the GOD GIVEN NATURE of man to be wit ONLY one woman...Kinda like it is against the idea of a loving God to be with ONLY the people of the earth exposed to Christianity...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
ya Setshego
Charter member
4259 posts
Tue Jun-26-01 10:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
139. "What do you mean"
In response to Reply # 136


  

          

by "grossed due to society", Urb?

>>As far as the
>sex issue, which was not
>really apart of the original
>question, it has been grossed
>due to society.


"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" — they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white
-(Me)

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oooo baby I like it raw. Oooo baby I like it RAAAW!(c)ODB- Shimmy Shimmy Ya

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

IllipticallyDefined

Tue Jun-26-01 06:24 PM

  
145. "here it is again.... don't be scared to look it up in your bibles..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

IllipticallyDefined
Jun-25-01, 11:02 AM (EST)
101. "Why is Jesus and Lucifer both called the Bright and Morning Star?"
The fallen Bright and Morning Star of Isaiah 14:12/ Lucifer
Isa: 14: 12: How you have fallen from heaven, O STAR of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!(New American Standard
Who is the Fallen Star that brings death, (the reflection or son of Fallen angel Belial), the son of "Morning" (Sun God Baal/Satan), the bright "Morning Star" Lucifer.


I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches. I am the root and the spawn of David, and I am the bright Morning Revelations 22:16

If you search on the net you'll get allot of different viewpoints on this... such as The NIV version is attacking christians, and king james leaves out morning star... others like this one, are from jews trying to disprove christianity, but i want to see what you think, so please explain...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 04:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
149. "here's an answer:"
In response to Reply # 145


          

>IllipticallyDefined
> Jun-25-01, 11:02 AM (EST)
>101. "Why is Jesus and Lucifer
>both called the Bright and
>Morning Star?"
>The fallen Bright and Morning Star
>of Isaiah 14:12/ Lucifer
>Isa: 14: 12: How you have
>fallen from heaven, O STAR
>of the morning, son of
>the dawn! You have been
>cut down to the earth,
>You who have weakened the
>nations!(New American Standard
>Who is the Fallen Star that
>brings death, (the reflection or
>son of Fallen angel Belial),
>the son of "Morning" (Sun
>God Baal/Satan), the bright "Morning
>Star" Lucifer.

Responce: Actually some scholars don't consider this to be talking about satan at all but rather the king of babylon at that time. so that's one answer. But, if you do here's another answer. Satan would be considered the morning star in the sence that he was the most slendid of all of God's angels his glory surpassed all others. So in that sense he was a morning star. Jesus is refered to as the light because of his revalation. in other words this is a world of darkness(sin) Jesus became the light(redemption). so satan's is physical apperance while Jesus is revalation.
>
>
>I, Jesus, have sent my angel
>to testify these things in
>the churches. I am the
>root and the spawn of
>David, and I am the
>bright Morning Revelations 22:16

Responce: However Jesus, is the true morning revalation. ( Rev 22:16 is actually refering to Num 24:17) were it says that there will be a star from the line of Judah. Also I can't remeber the verse of hand but I think it's in 1 john it tells believers to beware because the satan can appear to imitate an angel of the light. So to wrap it up satan was the morning star because of apperance, Jesus is the morning revalation because he brought the light into the world of darkness.
>
>
>
>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Dyskotek

Wed Jun-27-01 04:36 AM

  
150. "RE: here it is again.... don't be scared to look it up in your bibles..."
In response to Reply # 145


          

>IllipticallyDefined
> Jun-25-01, 11:02 AM (EST)
>101. "Why is Jesus and Lucifer
>both called the Bright and
>Morning Star?"
>The fallen Bright and Morning Star
>of Isaiah 14:12/ Lucifer
>Isa: 14: 12: How you have
>fallen from heaven, O STAR
>of the morning, son of
>the dawn! You have been
>cut down to the earth,
>You who have weakened the
>nations!(New American Standard
>Who is the Fallen Star that
>brings death, (the reflection or
>son of Fallen angel Belial),
>the son of "Morning" (Sun
>God Baal/Satan), the bright "Morning
>Star" Lucifer.

You probably know the answer to this already.

Satan at one time was an angel, and supposedly a very high ranking one (near to Jesus), and of course he was cast out. Hence the "son of the dawn"....



>
>
>I, Jesus, have sent my angel
>to testify these things in
>the churches. I am the
>root and the spawn of
>David, and I am the
>bright Morning Revelations 22:16
>
>If you search on the net
>you'll get allot of different
>viewpoints on this... such as
>The NIV version is attacking
>christians, and king james leaves
>out morning star... others like
>this one, are from jews
>trying to disprove christianity, but
>i want to see what
>you think, so please explain...
>
>



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 07:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
159. "Yeah, Right..."
In response to Reply # 150


  

          

Both U and Osoclasi didn't answer the man's query....

WHY IS IT SATAN AND JESUS ARE ALLUDED TO IN THE BIBLE AS "LIGHT"?

Furthermore, le's say you and Oso's descriptions are correct...

WHY THEN IS SUN/STAR WORSHIP CONSIDERED A SIN BY THE LAWS OF THE OT?(If you're not familiar with the exact biblical ref I'll provide it within the next day.)

I mean, the light of the world, IS good for us...We'd physically die without it...Spiritually as well, being that, through spiritual revealation of God's word Jesus, like the "Morning Star" or the sun (did you think I was referring to Satan just now because of the quotations?).

By the way, that Morning Star question is EXCELLENT and I'll have more from a "Christian Author" on this subject...But in a different post...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

JUNE IS STEVIE WONDER APPRECIATION MONTH

Big men feeling small
Weak ones standing tall
I have watched them fall
They won't go where I go-

^Song of the same name^


_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
IllipticallyDefined

Wed Jun-27-01 06:24 PM

  
165. "RE: Yeah, Right..."
In response to Reply # 159


          

Ok thats good, but please don't come at me w/ some "the NIV is changing the word of God" some christians have this ish on the net... and then they talk about the KJV like its the best version and how wonderful it is that KJV didn't pollute the word of God by using the morning star for lucifer and jesus...peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 03:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
167. "RE: Yeah, Right..."
In response to Reply # 159


          

>Both U and Osoclasi didn't answer
>the man's query....
>
>WHY IS IT SATAN AND JESUS
>ARE ALLUDED TO IN THE
>BIBLE AS "LIGHT"?
>

Responce: Well first you have to assume that this verse is talking about Lucifer in the first place.

>Furthermore, le's say you and Oso's
>descriptions are correct...
>
>WHY THEN IS SUN/STAR WORSHIP CONSIDERED
>A SIN BY THE LAWS
>OF THE OT?(If you're not
>familiar with the exact biblical
>ref I'll provide it within
>the next day.)

Responce: Well, God wants us to worship the creator not the created.
>
>I mean, the light of the
>world, IS good for us...We'd
>physically die without it...Spiritually as
>well, being that, through spiritual
>revealation of God's word Jesus,
>like the "Morning Star" or
>the sun (did you think
>I was referring to Satan
>just now because of the
>quotations?).
>

Responce : yeah, but the light that Jesus has is the light that comes into spritual darkness that's the whole point.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 03:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
168. "here's some scripture:"
In response to Reply # 145


          

Responce: Here's something else that I wanted to put up. In 2 Cor 11:14 " and no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masqurade as servants of righteousness." This is a clear statment pointing to the fact that Satan is the Prince of Darkness (spritually) Jesus is the light that cancells out that darkness. The morning star( if this is even talking about Satan) only refers to his beauty. Jesus is the true authentic light.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
LovMvmnt2001

Mon Jul-02-01 08:59 PM

  
219. "The answer to the question regarding Jesus and Lucifer...."
In response to Reply # 145


          

Very interesting question....something that I looked up on my own, before even noticing it on Okayplayer.com. My questioning had to do with where did the phrase Lucifer come from and why do we associate it with Satan or the Devil...in looking up information regarding the term, I found that it was used to describe the planet Venus, which is a bright star to us, especially in the dawn. Thus the morning star reference. Some King James Bibles and even Latin Vulgate bibles will translate what is said at Isaiah 14:12 regarding the morning star or shining one as Lucifer. But it is interesting to note the translation of Lucifer to the Hebrew word used: heh'lel which means shining one. This helps to see that this word is not meant as a name or a title, but rather as an adjective, describing the king of Babylon and his boastful position. Isaiah 14:4 shows that this is pointed to the king of Babylon. We all know from the book of Daniel how the kings of Babylon were boastful and full of pride and would not accept or give honor to the God of Israel. Another point to consider: Isaiah 14:15, 16 speaks of this "Lucifer"/morning star/shining one going to what is translated as Sheol (the common grave), but many consider hell. The common grave of mankind is not a residing place for the Devil and also in verse 16, it speaks of people speaking "..is this the man...", when we can understand that Satan is a spirit creature. I hope I do not confuse others with this. But I can understand that Lucifer is not a title or a name given to Satan, but rather describes the king of Babylon, and ultimately Satan, since Babylon kings were used by the Devil as a tool and the Devil shows the same ambition and boastful pride also.

As regards to Jesus being mentioned in Revelation 22:16, we can be assured that Jesus is the true morning star, or as 2 Peter 1:19 states, "as a daystar rises, in your hearts". Daystar has also been translated as "light bearer" and Jesus, by not only his words and teachings, but by his actions proves that he is this one.

Again, if people find some disagreement in the presentation of this or have questions, please reply or e-mail me at rbaca@charter.net and I will be more than happy to explain what I am saying, perhaps more clearly.

Loveout.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Wed Jun-27-01 05:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
163. "Paul the LIAR?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

HTP

Much of the New Testament is can be attributed to the Apostle Paul, a figure whose words present a great conflict among Christians and between Christians and Muslims.

In Romans 3:5-8
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?
But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.


Question: WHY DOES PAUL HAVE TO LIE TO PROVE GOD'S GLORY? AND WHY DOES HE JUSTIFY IT?

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Gods Vessel

Wed Jun-27-01 06:03 PM

  
164. "Peace 'light'"
In response to Reply # 163


          

As far as the light post, i was contimplating and came to an astounding conclusion yall. okay, now the first thing manifested was light and it was manifested by God. Before Christ died, we see the world as BC. Now after he died, time is switched to AD. He obviously split time so it would be fair to say that it was like a brand new beginning because time in years began at 0 "again" Therefore, if you are pro-Christ you will recognize that the new beginning is being defined in it's new light being Jesus (the light of the world) feel me?
thought i'd share dat.


If you miss one, you miss many, but if you reach one, you reach plenty. -me

I just wanna innovate, stimulate minds...travel the world and penetrate the times -common

The ghetto is mad hot, we steppin on flames -black thought


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
169. "RE: Paul the LIAR?"
In response to Reply # 163


          

Responce: When reading scripture it is important to know whats going on in the entire passage inorder to keep the context of the passage. So what's going on Paul is talking to the Jews of his time who thought that they would be saved just because they were Jewish, buts that's not the case.

>In Romans 3:5-8
>But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the
>righteousness of God, what shall
>we say
The God who
>inflicts wrath is not unrighteous,
>is He? (I am speaking
>in human terms.)

Responce: What he is saying here is by contrast that our sin brings out God's rightousness.God's rightousness shows up against the dark background of man's sin. Why? because he does not sin and we do. And the more we sin it reflects the more we need a saviour, also it shows that God is faithful to us even when we are not faithful to him. So Paul is asking do we keep on sinning to show how rightous God is? If that's the case how can God judge because our sin shows his rightousness. Someone might argue that my sin enhances God's truthfulness, This is human reasoning.

>May it never be! For otherwise,
>how will God judge the
>world?

Responce: No way Paul declares for how will God judge the world it that is the case.

>But if through my lie the
>truth of God abounded to
>His glory, why am I
>also still being judged as
>a sinner?

Responce: Now Paul argues this saying if my lie brings Glory to God then why am I being judged as a sinner. He using logic here to disprove the argument.

>And why not say (as we
>are slanderously reported and as
>some claim that we say),
>"Let us do evil that
>good may come"? Their condemnation
>is just.

Responce: That's correct. what Paul's point here is that the more we sin the more of God's grace we recieve, but we don't constantly willfully sin because we are now bought with a price. we have been adopted into God's family and we don't live a lifestyle of constant willful sin.
>
>
>Question: WHY DOES PAUL HAVE TO
>LIE TO PROVE GOD'S GLORY?
>AND WHY DOES HE JUSTIFY
>IT?

Responce: So to wrap it up Paul isn't saying that he has to lie to prove God's glory that's human reasoning. this just shows that God is faithful to us even when were not faithful to him, just as Isreal was.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
urbgriot
Charter member
11445 posts
Thu Jun-28-01 04:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
171. "good point."
In response to Reply # 163


          

Paul is a very controversial figure for Christians...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
IllipticallyDefined

Thu Jun-28-01 08:57 PM

  
179. "RE: good point."
In response to Reply # 171


          

My theology professor at St. John's said there was a pauline letter which was forged... I have to find out which, im thinking it was the one we're talking about "romans", He said that it was a letter that didn't fit the writing style of paul's other letters and that it was probably a scholar who was trying to pass his work as pauls... you heard of this osoclasi? I'll try and get more info

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jun-29-01 06:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
184. "RE: good point."
In response to Reply # 179


          

>My theology professor at St. John's
>said there was a pauline
>letter which was forged... I
>have to find out which,
>im thinking it was the
>one we're talking about "romans",
>He said that it was
>a letter that didn't fit
>the writing style of paul's
>other letters and that it
>was probably a scholar who
>was trying to pass his
>work as pauls... you heard
>of this osoclasi? I'll try
>and get more info

Response: yeah sort of, but that's not uncommon for a book to have a different writing style. Why? because a lot of times scribes would write down a lot of things that was said instead of the apostles themselves. You see this in Jeremiah, and in some of Peters books so its no big deal. But if this not what your professor is talking about find out. I'd love to see it. Also a lot of times these arguments are subjective in nature such as the JEPD, you know they say that Moses did'nt write the Torah because of different writting styles in it, they do the same to Isaiah with verse 1-39 and 40-66 calling it a Duetero- Isaiah in this case the burden of proof is on them. So ask your professor what proof does he have of this ( in a nice way). And check it out. A lot of times these professors speak dogmatically about things like there fact but sometimes there not.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

GodFreedom
Charter member
289 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 11:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
197. "RE: Biblical Questions"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Do Christians Worship the Sun?
No, of course not, but their belief is not holy and it has a root in ancient Sun worship. Check it out.
The word Holy Bible derives from the Greek Words Helios Biblos. Helios means Sun and Biblos is derived from the ancient Egyptian word, papyrus, which means paper. "Holy Bible" means Sun Book (or compiled papers) and represents the knowledge of the "Children of the Sun" as recorded by the original inhabitants of Egypt.
The biblical Jesus, for the most part, is the SUN in the sky. The fiery SUN. John 3:19 "I am the Light of the world," Psalms 84:11 "the Lord God is a sun….," Deuteronomy 4:24 "God is a consuming fire," Mal. 4:2 “Sun of Righteousness,” and John 12:46 “...a light into the world” are just a few examples. The 12 apostles of the biblical Jesus are the constellations.
People are not born from virgins. The Virgin birth is the SUN having its start (solar calendars) in the constellation of Virgo as it was in some areas of the world. (Virgo is Latin for virgin) The name Mary is symbolic to the names Auset-Meri (Isis) and Maya. Isis was the Virgin mother of the astrological Sun God Heru (Horus) of ancient Egypt. In Buddhist mythology, Maya was the name of the virgin mother of Siddhartha (the Buddha of 2,500 years ago). There are more astrological virgin mothers besides these three. In fact, there were over 10 "crucified saviors" before Jesus, because these are mythological and esoteric stories based on the SUN and it's movements. Virgo is the only female constellation, the celestial virgin.
One of the astrological signs of Virgo is a lil M looking symbol. Each astrological sign has at least two symbols. Virgo's other sign is a woman holding bread. (Bethlehem is Hebrew for "House of bread") It is said that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Virgo, the astrological house of the “celestial virgin” shows a woman holding loaves of grain or bread. Hence, the SUN comes from (born from) a virgin (Virgo). This is also the foundation of the teaching that Jesus fed 5,000 people with loaves of bread and 2 fish. The bread and fish is VIRGO (woman holding bread) and PISCES (symbolized by two fish).
The resurrection of Lazarus is a plagiarized story taken from the Ausarian Resurrection of over 12,000 years ago, which was also based on the SUN. In the story, the God Ausar (Osirus) was killed by his brother, Set (origin of the word Satan). The son (Sun) of Ausar (Osirus), named Heru (Horus in Greek) avenged his father's death by fighting with Set. His father was resurrected from death. The European plagiarizers changed El-Ausar to Lazarus. Heru changed into Jesus, the son (SUN) of God. This original story (prototype for Constantine’s bible) is published in detail in the BOOK OF THE DEAD.
Jesus the "son" dying for us is really the SUN dying for us. The SUN is giving its life to us continuously. The SUN burns itself and we utilize its energy in our lives. It gives and we receive. This is why it is said that Jesus gave his life for us. The crucifixion on a cross was not a true event. For more information on this, check out Christopher Knight's The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus. Also, the Holy Qur'an of the Muslims does not teach about Jesus dying on a cross. The Jehovah Witnesses also acknowledge that he did not die on a cross. In Deuteronomy 21, the bible speaks of a "son" being stoned to death and hung on a tree. Then in the New Testament book of Galatians, Chapter 3, Verse 13 speaks on those who have been hung on a tree. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one that HANGETH ON A TREE : " The bible continues to teach about his death on a tree in the First book of Peter, Chapter 2, where in verse 24 it states: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own BODY ON THE TREE, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : by those whose stripes ye were healed." The cross represents the SUN passing through the Vernal Equinox (Easter/resurrection), Summer Solstice, Autumnal Equinox and Winter Solstice (Christmas/birth). The historical Jesus did not die on a cross. It also represents the SUN going through the four cardinal constellations, which are Leo, Taurus, Aquarius and Scorpio. The cardinal constellations are also the four beasts in the Revelations of St. John the Divine. Rev states: "The first beast was like a LION, and the second beast like a CALF, and the third beast had a face as a MAN, and the fourth beast was like a flying EAGLE." In astrology, Leo is a lion, Taurus is a bull, Aquarius is a man pouring water and Scorpio has three symbols, one a scorpion, one an eagle and one a serpent. These four cardinal signs are also the basis for Ezekiel's description of the four faces in Ezekiel 1:10.
The crown of thorns spoken about in Matthew 27:29 is the layer of the SUN called CORONA. Corona is Latin for crown, and in science, the outermost part of the SUN is called corona. The SUN wears a crown of thorns. This is why it is said that Jesus wore a crown of thorns.
Christmas is celebrated December 25th because that is when the Winter Solstice ends and the SUN begins to travel North again. Prior to the Winter Solstice, the SUN travels South and on December 22nd, (in the Northern Hemisphere) the SUN is farthest South of the equator, and for three days it stops moving South and on the 25th it moves Northward again. This is why it is said that God’s son (SUN) was "born" on the 25th. The stable or manger that the biblical Jesus was born in is the constellation or house of Capricorn, which was once known as the “STABLE of Augeas.”
The 12 tribes of Israel, 12 tribes of Ishmael and other biblical accounts of 12 are based on the heavens above and not necessarily actual events that took place. A large percentage of the bible is based on the SUN and the constellations.
The bible also says Jesus is the light of the world, he shall comes from the east and all eyes shall see him, along with other things which are describing the SUN in the sky, not the actual man.
The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.

following taken from acharya's web page for a quick summary of 'the coincidences'

In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
The sun is the "Light of the World."
The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
The sun "walks on water."
The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sat Jun-30-01 07:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
198. "sun vs Son"
In response to Reply # 197


          

>Do Christians Worship the Sun?
>No, of course not, but their
>belief is not holy and
>it has a root in
>ancient Sun worship. Check
>it out.

Response: I'd have to disagree with you here.

>The word Holy Bible derives from
>the Greek Words Helios Biblos.

Response: Holy does not derive from Helios, as a matter of fact Holy means seperated. If we were to follow this logic then we would have to be consistant, such as in leviticus where it says be Holy for I am Holy, by your translation it should say be the sun as I am the sun, this makes no sense. So instead of Isreal being a Holy nation now its a sun nation.

> Helios means Sun and
>Biblos is derived from the
>ancient Egyptian word, papyrus, which
>means paper. "Holy Bible"
>means Sun Book (or compiled
>papers) and represents the knowledge
>of the "Children of the
>Sun" as recorded by the
>original inhabitants of Egypt.

Response: Now where are you getting this from. The egyptians didn't write the bible. the Bible had a variety of authors none of them being Egyptian. You can tell because all of the ceremonial traditions brought up in the bible represent strong Isrealite heritage not Egyptian.

>The biblical Jesus, for the most
>part, is the SUN in
>the sky. The fiery
>SUN. John 3:19 "I
>am the Light of the
>world,"

Response: Be careful when using this kind of reasoning. What Jesus was talking about in this passage was he represented the light by means of his revelation into a world filled with darkness(sin). What he is preaching is that men love sin (darkness) that's why they don't turn towards him. Not that he was to be taken as the sun.


Psalms 84:11 "the
>Lord God is a sun….,"

Response: Once again be careful, this verse says the Lord is a sun and a shield. So I ask are we now worshipping shields also? Of course not, this is a psalm of praise and worship. Meaning that he wanted to return to his place of worship in the temple, check out the entire passage.

>Deuteronomy 4:24 "God is
>a consuming fire,"

Responce: The bible sometimes speaks in anthropic terms (meaning terms humans can understand) this is one, this is refering to God's wrath that's why the next line says he is a jealous God. There are verses pointing to God's hand size and to God having wings, the intent of these verse are not to convince the reader that God has these atributes(for God is a spirit) but for means of communication so we can get a better sense of whats going on.

Mal. 4:2
>“Sun of Righteousness,”

Response: This is only a comparison to the sun because the sun rises so Christ is called the rising sun from heaven, but if we use your logic, then it also says that the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in his wings, so Jesus now has wings, or the sun has wings, this type of interpretation will get you in trouble.

and John
>12:46 “...a light into the
>world” are just a few
>examples.

Response: I already explained what the light of the world means.

The 12 apostles
>of the biblical Jesus are
>the constellations.

Response: Sorry, this is subjective, the apostles were real people who lived real lives whos deaths are written down.

>People are not born from virgins.

Response: But, Jesus was. What you have done is displayed your opinion in this argument by ruling out the chance of miracles. If you believe God can create a universe out of nothing then you have no problem with the virgin birth.

> The Virgin birth is
>the SUN having its start
>(solar calendars) in the constellation
>of Virgo as it was
>in some areas of the
>world. (Virgo is Latin for
>virgin)

Response: So whats your point, just because virgo is latin for virgin that has no bearing on the virgin birth of the Messiah. You have to remember that Christ birth was prophesied and in that prophesy his name was given and where he would be born, the sun is never called Immauel nor does it start in Bethalehem.

The name Mary
>is symbolic to the names
>Auset-Meri (Isis) and Maya.
>Isis was the Virgin mother
>of the astrological Sun God
>Heru (Horus) of ancient Egypt.

Response: But, Mary was never seen as a God, she was a servant of God, also she was covered with the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with astrology.

> In Buddhist mythology, Maya
>was the name of the
>virgin mother of Siddhartha (the
>Buddha of 2,500 years ago).
> There are more astrological
>virgin mothers besides these three.
> In fact, there were
>over 10 "crucified saviors" before
>Jesus, because these are mythological
>and esoteric stories based on
>the SUN and it's movements.
> Virgo is the only
>female constellation, the celestial virgin.

Response: But none of these cruxified saviors are at the head of a world religion, and if you investigate any of there stories fully you will see there are huge differences between these saviors and Christ.
>
>One of the astrological signs of
>Virgo is a lil M
>looking symbol. Each astrological
>sign has at least two
>symbols. Virgo's other sign
>is a woman holding bread.
>(Bethlehem is Hebrew for "House
>of bread")

Response: This would be a good argument but there is one problem, Bethleham is a real location that you can identify.

It
>is said that Jesus was
>born in Bethlehem because Virgo,
>the astrological house of the
>“celestial virgin” shows a woman
>holding loaves of grain or
>bread.

Response: Boy, you are getting pretty creative here, but this takes more faith to believe this than it does the actual Bible itself.

Hence, the SUN
>comes from (born from) a
>virgin (Virgo). This is
>also the foundation of the
>teaching that Jesus fed 5,000
>people with loaves of bread
>and 2 fish. The
>bread and fish is VIRGO
>(woman holding bread) and PISCES
>(symbolized by two fish).

Response: So if what your saying is true then where is the symbol of the 5000. If there is bread and fish then what about the symbol of the 5000. Then of course you need one for Bethasida the town they were in and a symbol for the twelve baskets and the apostles also.

>The resurrection of Lazarus is a
>plagiarized story taken from the
>Ausarian Resurrection of over 12,000
>years ago, which was also
>based on the SUN.

Response: Not so fast, I need scripture to prove what your saying is true. So I can read it in context.

>In the story, the God
>Ausar (Osirus) was killed by
>his brother, Set (origin of
>the word Satan). The
>son (Sun) of Ausar (Osirus),
>named Heru (Horus in Greek)
>avenged his father's death by
>fighting with Set. His
>father was resurrected from death.

Response: where do you see Lazarus was killed by his brother and avenged by his father?

> The European plagiarizers changed
>El-Ausar to Lazarus. Heru
>changed into Jesus, the son
>(SUN) of God. This
>original story (prototype for Constantine’s
>bible) is published in detail
>in the BOOK OF THE
>DEAD.

Response: Subjective, which Europeons give me names, dates, quotes. Jesus was not Lasarus' brother.

>Jesus the "son" dying for us
>is really the SUN dying
>for us. The SUN
>is giving its life to
>us continuously. The SUN
>burns itself and we utilize
>its energy in our lives.

Response: As I showed you earlier Jesus is not the sun. Also the sun is not dying for us, it is dying because of thermodynamics.

> It gives and we
>receive. This is why
>it is said that Jesus
>gave his life for us.
> The crucifixion on a
>cross was not a true
>event.

Response: Yes, it was.

For more information
>on this, check out Christopher
>Knight's The Hiram Key: Pharaohs,
>Freemasons and the Discovery of
>the Secret Scrolls of Jesus.

Response: Sure, no prob.

> Also, the Holy Qur'an
>of the Muslims does not
>teach about Jesus dying on
>a cross.

Response: Yes, but I do not believe the Qur'an is a holy book also prophet Mohammed was born centuries later.

The Jehovah
>Witnesses also acknowledge that he
>did not die on a
>cross.

Response: Bad argument, the founder of jehovah witnesses Charles T Russell was not a scholar nor a theologian and failed a hebrew and greek test in a court of law. In the Russlell vs Ross case in 1913.

In Deuteronomy
>21, the bible speaks of
>a "son" being stoned to
>death and hung on a
>tree.

Response: correct

Then in the
>New Testament book of Galatians,
>Chapter 3, Verse 13 speaks
>on those who have been
>hung on a tree.
>"Christ hath redeemed us from
>the curse of the law,
>being made a curse for
>us : for it is
>written, Cursed is every one
>that HANGETH ON A TREE

Response: correct

>: " The bible
>continues to teach about his
>death on a tree in
>the First book of Peter,
>Chapter 2, where in verse
>24 it states: "Who
>his own self bare our
>sins in his own BODY
>ON THE TREE, that we,
>being dead to sins, should
>live unto righteousness : by
>those whose stripes ye were
>healed."

Response:correct

The cross represents
>the SUN passing through the
>Vernal Equinox (Easter/resurrection), Summer Solstice,
>Autumnal Equinox and Winter Solstice
>(Christmas/birth). The historical Jesus
>did not die on a
>cross.

Response: Incorrect, the cruxifition was invented by the persians and was wide spread by the times the Romans implemented it. As a matter of fact if you look at history and compare the resurrection account you'll be amazed how accurate it is. Also there have been archeological digs inwhich we have found bones of people who went through the cruxifiction look at the Yohanan.

It also represents
>the SUN going through the
>four cardinal constellations, which are
>Leo, Taurus, Aquarius and Scorpio.
> The cardinal constellations are
>also the four beasts in
>the Revelations of St. John
>the Divine. Rev
>states: "The first beast
>was like a LION, and
>the second beast like a
>CALF, and the third beast
>had a face as a
>MAN, and the fourth beast
>was like a flying EAGLE."

Response: Actually if you read it closely it is refering to the major world powers of its time, Greece, Egypt, Rome,and Assyrians.

> In astrology, Leo is
>a lion, Taurus is a
>bull, Aquarius is a man
>pouring water and Scorpio has
>three symbols, one a scorpion,
>one an eagle and one
>a serpent. These four
>cardinal signs are also the
>basis for Ezekiel's description of
>the four faces in Ezekiel
>1:10.

Response: Sorry, the image Ezekiel saw was that of the Lord look at chpt 2 when God starts talking to him, the creatures he saw were nothing more than angels.

The crown of thorns spoken about
>in Matthew 27:29 is the
>layer of the SUN called
>CORONA. Corona is Latin
>for crown, and in science,
>the outermost part of the
>SUN is called corona.
>The SUN wears a crown
>of thorns. This is
>why it is said that
>Jesus wore a crown of
>thorns.

Response: Now how did you come up with this one. Just because the sun has a outer layer what does that have to do with thorns. Thorns are needles about 9 inches long.

>Christmas is celebrated December 25th because
>that is when the Winter
>Solstice ends and the SUN
>begins to travel North again.
> Prior to the Winter
>Solstice, the SUN travels South
>and on December 22nd, (in
>the Northern Hemisphere) the SUN
>is farthest South of the
>equator, and for three days
>it stops moving South and
>on the 25th it moves
>Northward again. This is
>why it is said that
>God’s son (SUN) was "born"
>on the 25th.

Response: Boy this is one of those arguments that just won't go away, but here it is again the Christian holiday is not a copy of Saturnalia but it was put there to overthrow Saturnalia. It was the Christian answer to the god not a coping.

The
>stable or manger that the
>biblical Jesus was born in
>is the constellation or house
>of Capricorn, which was once
>known as the “STABLE of
>Augeas.”

Response: where so you see a refernce to the stable of Augeas in scripture?

>The 12 tribes of Israel, 12
>tribes of Ishmael and other
>biblical accounts of 12 are
>based on the heavens above
>and not necessarily actual events
>that took place. A
>large percentage of the bible
>is based on the SUN
>and the constellations.

Responce: So where did the names come from you know Dan, Judah , Manessah etc. Also you have to explain there inheritance, why would a person make up where they lived and how they divided up the land of Isreal. Also how the tribe of Levi didn't have an inheritance and were not considered part of the twelve where are thier contellations. Then you have to explain how Dan lost there inheritance and how the Levites regained theres if this has to do with the sun and not history.

>The bible also says Jesus is
>the light of the world,
>he shall comes from the
>east and all eyes shall
>see him, along with other
>things which are describing the
>SUN in the sky, not
>the actual man.

Response: I don't know where it says the light of the world would come from the east, but if you know the verse show me, and if there is such a verse it probably means the Near East.

>The sun "dies" for three days
>on December 22nd, the winter
>solstice, when it stops in
>its movement south, to be
>born again or resurrected on
>December 25th, when it resumes
>its movement north.

Response: So when did Christ travel north? Dec 22 means nothing because we don't know when he died and rose.
>
>following taken from acharya's web page
>for a quick summary of
>'the coincidences'


Response: I should have known, oh well.

>In some areas, the calendar originally
>began in the constellation of
>Virgo, and the sun would
>therefore be "born of a
>Virgin."
>The sun is the "Light of
>the World."
>The sun "cometh on clouds, and
>every eye shall see him."

Response: some areas which areas and how did it affect Isreal.
>
>The sun rising in the morning
>is the "Savior of mankind."

Response: The sun is a creation not the creator it is not our savior.
>
>The sun wears a corona, "crown
>of thorns" or halo.

Response: halo and thorns are a little different.

>The sun "walks on water."

Response: No it does'nt

>The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples"
>are the 12 months and
>the 12 signs of the
>zodiac or constellations, through which
>the sun must pass.

Response: Yep, and there names are Peter, John , Matt, I suppose

>The sun at 12 noon is
>in the house or temple
>of the "Most High"; thus,
>"he" begins "his Father's work"
>at "age" 12.

Response: This is so left field its scary, how is the sun a house or temple and who is its father.

>The sun enters into each sign
>of the zodiac at 30°;
>hence, the "Sun of God"
>begins his ministry at "age"
>30.

Response: But 30 degress and age 30 are two totally different things.

>The sun is hung on a
>cross or "crucified," which represents
>its passing through the equinoxes,
>the vernal equinox being Easter,
>at which time it is
>then resurrected.

Response: But,the sun reserrection happens over and over Jesus happend only once.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Sun Jul-01-01 08:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
200. "the bible and the sun:"
In response to Reply # 198


          

Here are some verses that show what the Bible says about the sun:

Duet 4:19 and when you look up into the sky and see the sun, the moon and stars- all in heavenly array- do not be enticed into bowing down to then and worshipping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under the heaven.

Duet 17:3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods bowing down to them or to the sun, of to the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. Vs 4 If this is true vs:5 take the man or women who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

Isa 47:13 All the counsel you have recieved has only worn out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make prediction month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble the fire will burn them up.


2 Kings 23:5 ( this is a section about King Josiah renewing the covenant) He did away with the pagan appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places of the towns of Judah and on those around Jeruselem- those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry host.

Jer 8:2 ( this what happens to people who worship the sun)They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have worshipped. They will not be gathered up or buried. But will be like refuse lying on the ground.

Eze 8:16 ( The Lord is revealing things to Ezekiel in the temple)
He then brought me into the inner court of the House of the Lord, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the alter, were about 25 men. With their backs toward the temple of the Lord and faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east. vs:17 He said to me, "Have you seen this,son of man? Is it trivial matter for the house of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here?


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Tue Jul-03-01 09:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
225. "L-AZAR-US"
In response to Reply # 198


  

          

HTP

According to Charles Finch in Echoes of the Darkland, L-AZAR-USmeans "The Osiris called" in Egyptian, where L is the Semitic article meaning "the," AZAR=ASAR=Osiris, and "US" meaning called.

Parallels between the Lazarus story and Heru awakening Azar (Osiris) in the Prt Em Hru= Book of the Coming Forth by Day/Becoming Awake (AKA Book of the Dead):

1. LAzarus is being mourned by two sisters/ Osiris is mourned by his two sisters,

2.Jesus tells Lazarus to rise and he rises in his linen bandages/Horus tells OSiris to rise and he rises in his mummified form.

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 04:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
226. "RE: L-AZAR-US"
In response to Reply # 225


          

>HTP
>
>According to Charles Finch in Echoes
>of the Darkland, L-AZAR-USmeans "The
>Osiris called" in Egyptian, where
>L is the Semitic article
>meaning "the," AZAR=ASAR=Osiris, and "US"
>meaning called.
>
>Parallels between the Lazarus story and
>Heru awakening Azar (Osiris) in
>the Prt Em Hru= Book
>of the Coming Forth by
>Day/Becoming Awake (AKA Book of
>the Dead):
>
>1. LAzarus is being mourned by
>two sisters/ Osiris is mourned
>by his two sisters,

Response: Ok, this is good.
>
>2.Jesus tells Lazarus to rise and
>he rises in his linen
>bandages/Horus tells OSiris to rise
>and he rises in his
>mummified form.


Response: But, Osirus was chopped into peices if I am not mistaking and became God of the underworld. Where do you see Lazarus doing all of that. And didn't Osirus wife Isis run the globe trying to put him back together earlier in the story?

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
utamaroho

Wed Jul-04-01 04:37 AM

  
227. "that just means"
In response to Reply # 226


          

they didn't include the whole story during transmission...

cultural borrowing isn't always done in totality, bits and pieces, bits and pieces.

and solarus: what's up with that? violation of rules.

"countdown till the pre-dynastic blastin'": 3 days

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 05:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
229. "RE: that just means"
In response to Reply # 227


          

>they didn't include the whole story
>during transmission...

Response: So are you saying Lazarus was cut into pieces and put together by his wife, then became King of the underworld.
>

>



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
utamaroho

Wed Jul-04-01 05:18 AM

  
231. "no"
In response to Reply # 229


          

just that in creating a myth based on an older one, one can leave out what they want. you can pick and choose what you want to pattern off of.

if i red "green eggs and ham about a man whose never had them", then write a similar book but say "green eggs and bacon about a woman whose never eaten them"


(((((PEACE)))))
____________________________________________________________
“One who has not studied the facts has no place in a discussion.” -Mao Zedong

"God is good, me love God, God love me. God will take care of me, Jesus love me too, I will repent all my sins and give me to Jesus, Jesus will take me to heaven with him. Jesus loves me, me good. Me give money to church, church good. Pastor needs new car, Jesus loves me, Jesus loves pastor. Jesus is God, jesus is son of God, Jesus is father of god, me confused now. Me go to sleep now, me need nap, me brain tired. -Christians"
-ish_skywalker

"Considering the fact that Islam is a disgrace to human kind, Christianity is a disgrace to everything in the universe, Judiasm is just one confusing mess, and the rest of em are all praying to aliens from outer space. I say we have a religion where the only rule is that you know how to roll a Garcia Vega. Ya know? And if I can't be god, can I be one of the people who gets to make hypocritical rules and then not follow them like them stinking Catholics? Please, pretty please, with the Annunaki on top?" -ish_skywalker

"That 112 song that says "If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap). If you're sexy and you know it and you really want to show it...if you're sexy and you know it clap your hands (clap, clap)." This TRULY sucks. I shut it off after that, but i'm still wondering if the second verse says "if you're sexy and you know it stomp your feet (stomp, stomp)". This is an all time low for music, period. It makes me wish 2 of those guys from 112 would die so they could be called 110." -NazDak

"nah man, that's suicide...jumping off bridge is suicide, blowing your brains out is suicide...letting wyclef handle your album 100% like is suicide...that...is stupid suicide...lol but there lurks a dark humor about getting your ass beat by gang members..." PlanetInfinite


THIS IS SOME FUNNY SHIT!


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 07:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
235. "RE: First"
In response to Reply # 231


          

>just that in creating a myth
>based on an older one,
>one can leave out what
>they want. you can pick
>and choose what you want
>to pattern off of.
>
>if i red "green eggs and
>ham about a man whose
>never had them", then write
>a similar book but say
>"green eggs and bacon about
>a woman whose never eaten
>them"

First of all, you miss read what Osoclasi meant. Solarus mentioned the similarities, Osoclasi chose the differences. If the differences are greater than the similarities (such as chopped into pieces like osirus was) one has to assume then they have different origins. Just because they have similarities doesnt mean that they copy. Also Jesus is a Historical figure and it has been proven (Backed by eyewitness accounts). Osirus hasn't been proven as a historical figure.

The name lazarus was a popular name at that time and appeared twice in the new testament (Luke 16: 19) mentions of a lazarus separate from the one jesus rose from the dead. Are you goinmg to compare that Lazarus to Osirus too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Solarus
Charter member
3604 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 03:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
243. "Several versions/parts to..."
In response to Reply # 226


  

          

HTP

the Azarian drama. It was a MYTH with metaphoric meaning (as with ALL things Afrakan). In the Prt Em Hru, there is a specific seen where Heru replies "Come Forth" and "awakens" Azar. this is what I was referring to.

Carry on.

To utamaroho: I was just explicating a piece of what GodFreedom said for more clarification. Didn't want to do any more than that.

PEace
Solarus

***Words of Wisdom***

"If it's not about NATIONBUILDING, it's not about ANYTHING."- Dr. John Henrik Clarke

"We are not the victims! We are just fighting forces that we cannot see!"-2001 Sankofa Conference

"You don't have the RIGHT to have free time from your children."-Kwame Agyei Akoto

"It is the worst feeling to hear the call of the drum and not be able to respond."-Solarus

On understanding Afrakan thought:
"it's like explaining astrophysics to a whino, the explanation can't be done like that. when people try to simplify it, they ask the other person to tailor the answers their cultural context. and trying to cater afrikan ideals to european understanding is a REAL sin."-utamaroho

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

IllipticallyDefined

Sun Jul-01-01 05:41 PM

  
201. "Heaven... the heaven borg"
In response to Reply # 0


          

i could post some sites but im kinda busy right now and don't feel like doing extra work... but maybe somebody can help me out, johns' revelations when seeing heaven are pretty graphic and scary, not a place i see of beauty... he sees creatures w/ four faces, eyes all over them, and then he says some angel measures the walls of heaven, i think they were 50 ft high and 1,500 miles around, what is that shit? and when he saw inside the city everybody was bowing down to God saying "holy holy...praise praise" or some shit, again what is that?that doesn't seem like a loving God... that shits scary and right now im scared when i think about it... lucifer sounds more enticing right now, and yo i'm not to fond of that guy...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
215. "you are so silly"
In response to Reply # 201


          

>i could post some sites but
>im kinda busy right now
>and don't feel like doing
>extra work... but maybe somebody
>can help me out, johns'
>revelations when seeing heaven are
>pretty graphic and scary, not
>a place i see of
>beauty... he sees creatures w/
>four faces, eyes all over
>them, and then he says
>some angel measures the walls
>of heaven, i think they
>were 50 ft high and
>1,500 miles around, what is
>that shit? and when he
>saw inside the city everybody
>was bowing down to God
>saying "holy holy...praise praise" or
>some shit, again what is
>that?that doesn't seem like a
>loving God... that shits scary
>and right now im scared
>when i think about it...
>lucifer sounds more enticing right
>now, and yo i'm not
>to fond of that guy...


Response: revelation is full of symbolism and you have to know when to take some things literally and some symbolicaly. The description in the Bible is just a glance as to what heaven is really going to be like. One can only imagine, one day I'll explian what some of the symbolism means. You have to have a background in the Old Testament to accuratly understand the book of Revalation.



------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
IllipticallyDefined

Mon Jul-02-01 07:51 PM

  
218. "RE: you are so silly"
In response to Reply # 215


          

The description in the Bible is just a glance as to what heaven is really going to be like.

If thats true as you say, then i would be scared of that heaven, i'd rather stay here on earth w/ the fellowship of family and friends... but if there truly is symbolism which of course i know, my post was a bit sarchastic and silly i'll give you that... but some of the ideas raised by these kooks on the net got me thinking so if you may, please describe the symbolism in human terms<<<prolly not possible>>> for me, especially the ones i asked about...peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 05:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
233. "can you wait?"
In response to Reply # 218


          

>The description in the Bible is
>just a glance as to
>what heaven is really going
>to be like.
>
>If thats true as you say, then i would be scared of that heaven, i'd rather stay here on earth w/ the fellowship of family and friends... but if there truly is symbolism which of course i know, my post was a bit sarchastic and silly i'll give you that... but some of the ideas raised by these kooks on the net got me thinking so if you may, please describe the symbolism in human terms<<<prolly not possible>>> for me, especially the ones i asked about...peace


Response: I have a great book at home about the book of Revelation so I'll have to go fish it up for you. Also in Revelation 21 God is going to renew the earth and live with us so we will be here on earth just a new creation. So I'll try to get back to this one in a couple of days if you'll just be patient. Revelations is deep and I need to be careful.


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

guerilla_love
Charter member
8273 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
203. "here's one for you"
In response to Reply # 0


          

why was the kebra negast not included in the king james bible?


==**peace**==

"The logic of divide and rule is still valid today." Capleton

DomePoem Poets; Vibe Nation; One ppl under the spoken word

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
lambda
Member since Aug 14th 2002
72 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 11:31 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
205. "RE: here's one for you"
In response to Reply # 203


          

It wasn't included because it wasn't included in any previous Western (or Eastern, for that matter) Christian Bibles. The history of the Christian canon *is* pretty odd at times, but you can't blame the KJV for any of it; the KJV made no real canonical changes or decisions.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
guerilla_love
Charter member
8273 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 11:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
206. "from what i heard"
In response to Reply # 205


          

it was part of the bible until the making of the king james bible

let's both go check our sources



==**peace**==

"The logic of divide and rule is still valid today." Capleton

DomePoem Poets; Vibe Nation; One ppl under the spoken word

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
213. "RE: from what i heard"
In response to Reply # 206


          

>it was part of the bible
>until the making of the
>king james bible
>
>let's both go check our sources

Response: Which King James there are about five of them. Plus you'd be better off checking the Greek Manuscripts , and seeing if it exist there. By the way it doesn't.
>
>
>
>

>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
guerilla_love
Charter member
8273 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 03:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
246. "i was wrong"
In response to Reply # 213


          

==**peace**==

"The logic of divide and rule is still valid today." Capleton

DomePoem Poets; Vibe Nation; One ppl under the spoken word

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 12:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
207. "?'s for OSOCLASI"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

1.)You said earlier you didn't notice anything in Deuteronomy 28
about slavery...Tell me what you think of chap 28:15 & on where it discusses the curses for disobedience...

I.E....in verse28 of the 29th chapter it discusses a madness within a people.

in verse 29 it discusses a people being oppressed and robbed...

in verse 30 it discusses how the men of that certain people would take wives who would be raped by others...Those same men would also build homes for people which they or their familes would never reside...The "vineyards" these men would work would never bear fruit that they would benefit from...

in verses 32 & 41 it discusses a people's sons and daughters being sold into slavery...

in verse 33 it discusses Strangers living off the said disobedient people...

in verse 34 it discusses how the said people would witness sights that would drive them mad...

in verse 36 it discusses the movement of people into alien land...

in verse 43 (I believe) it discusses how aliens would come over into the new land and prosper over the disobedient people who preceded them and the following verse discusses how the aliens would lend to the slaves and NEVER the opposite...

So my question to you is...HOW DID YOU READ CHAPTER 28 AND MISS ALL THAT?

2.)Who is TERTULLIAN, when did he live, what does he have to do with the TRINITY, where did he study, and why are Christians never taught about him in Sunday School???

3.)What is the relationship between the 33 degrees of freemasonry, St. Augustine (FAMED WRITER OF THE CONFESSIONS), & Christianity?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 12:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
209. "ALSO..."
In response to Reply # 207


  

          

4.)You've interpreted what the bible says about sun worship bu what do you feel about the word, AMEN, where does it get its root from?

5.)If there were no Egyptian authors of the Bible, then what was Moses??? I mean, he was born Hebrew, but RAISED Egyptian, ELITE EGYPTIAN, meaning he had access to the study of their mysteries and sciences, of which, was Astrology...Are we to assume that this has NOTHING to do with the BIBLE, especially when you consider he was the physical (flesh & blood) author of the law?

6.)Also, you prevously claimed all of the rituals to be HIGHLY integral to Hebrew cultcha, but wait, didn't the EGYPTIANS perform Sabbath before the Hebrews??? If not, how did they worship Osiris and AMENHOTEP?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
212. "more answers:"
In response to Reply # 209


          

>4.)You've interpreted what the bible says
>about sun worship bu what
>do you feel about the
>word, AMEN, where does it
>get its root from?


Response: Amen is an expression which means "so be it". Its a way of saying that may God's will be done. I hthink your trying to compare Amen to Amen Ra probably, but I really don't think you can relate a sun god to a simple phrase. Actually if you look at Jer 46:25 It tells how God is going to bring Judgement on an Egyptian god named Amon god of thebes, this might be Amen Ra your talking about.

>5.)If there were no Egyptian authors
>of the Bible, then what
>was Moses??? I mean,
>he was born Hebrew, but
>RAISED Egyptian, ELITE EGYPTIAN, meaning
>he had access to the
>study of their mysteries and
>sciences, of which, was Astrology...Are
>we to assume that this
>has NOTHING to do with
>the BIBLE, especially when you
>consider he was the physical
>(flesh & blood) author of
>the law?

Response: Good point, but you have to realize the Torah was revealed to Moses, which intells that it was not under his own authority. Here's the proof Moses brings judgment on Egypt and there gods proving that he did not associate with them. Look at Exodus12:12
" On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every first born- both men and animals- and I will bring judgement ON ALL THE GODS of Egypt. So Moses was not dedicated to the gods of Egypt nor their practices. If you read the response I wrote about the sun up above you will see Moses refutes just about every Egyptian practice out their.
>
>6.)Also, you prevously claimed all of
>the rituals to be HIGHLY
>integral to Hebrew cultcha, but
>wait, didn't the EGYPTIANS perform
>Sabbath before the Hebrews???
>If not, how did they
>worship Osiris and AMENHOTEP?

Response: It depends on which Sabbath your talking about, the first one was in Genesis where God work 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. In Levitcus 23:11 Isreal worked six days and on the seventh day they dedicated one day to worship the Lord. This was to be a " sign" of the covenant between God and Isreal at Mount Sinai to remind them about the slavery in Egpyt. But then you have the Sabbath year in Lev 25:1 where they were suppose to work six years then on the seventh year. They were suppose to stop and let the Lord supply them with food, this was to show their dependance on the Lord and their faith that the Lord would provide for them. But in the New Testament the Sabbath is fufilled with Christ who rose from the dead on Sunday(which is the reason why wh worship on Sunday instead of Saturday) so we celebrated the resurrection of our Lord Jesus on the sabbath. So I don't see any relationship between this and Osirus unless he brought the Egyptian out of slavery and made a covenant with them on Mount Sinai.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 05:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
211. "Answers:"
In response to Reply # 207


          

>1.)You said earlier you didn't notice
>anything in Deuteronomy 28
>about slavery...Tell me what you think
>of chap 28:15 & on
>where it discusses the curses
>for disobedience...


Response: Oh Ok I see where your going with this, but what your mistake is these verses have nothing to do with the African Slave trade. These curses in Duet, have to do with the nation of Isreal, and God's covenant with these people.

Actually, every book all the way up to Isaiah is called the Deuturo-Historical books because they show how Isreal responds to the Law in Deuteronomy.

If you look at Lamentations you see the proof of this heres an example:

Duet 28:65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no RESTING PLACE for the sole of your foot.

Fulfilled Lamentation 1:3 After affliction and harsh labor, Judah had gone into exile. She dwells among the nations; she finds no RESTING PLACE.

Duet 28:44 He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

Lamentation 1:5 Her foe has become her masters; her enemies are at ease. Her children have gone into exile captive before her foes.

Duet 28:30 You will be pledge to be married to a women, but another will take her and ravish her, You will build a house but not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.

Lam 5:2 Our inheritance ahs been turned over to aliens our homes to foreigners. we have become orphans and fatherless.

Duet: 28 :30 same as above

Lam 5:11 Women have been revished in Zion and virgins in the town of Judah.

Duet 28:26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beast of the earth and there will be no one to frighten them away.

Lam 5:18 for Mount Zion, which lies desolate with jackels prowling over it.


>
>So my question to you is...HOW
>DID YOU READ CHAPTER 28
>AND MISS ALL THAT?

Response: I think when you first mentioned it i was looking in Num 28 but oh well. The verse above is about Isreal and there response to the law (that's what the whole point of the old covenant)not Africa.
>
>2.)Who is TERTULLIAN, when did he
>live, what does he have
>to do with the TRINITY,
>where did he study, and
>why are Christians never taught
>about him in Sunday School???

Response: Tertullian was an early Christian apologetic from Carthege, North Africa (160-220). He broke away from the mainline church and became head of a small Montanist group. He stress reason making statements such as "nothing can be rational without order, much less can reason itself dispense with order in anyone." About the Trinity, he was a defender of the trinity in such books as "The Prescription aginst Herectics" he defended the doctrine. I don't know why christions are not taught about him in Sunday school but oh well.
>
>3.)What is the relationship between the
>33 degrees of freemasonry, St.
>Augustine (FAMED WRITER OF THE
>CONFESSIONS), & Christianity?

Response: You are asking a wierd question here, but I'll try to answer this. I don't see any connection with the two Augustine taught many biblical lessons that the church still uses today, and don't see any connection with free masonry. Christianity sees free masonry as a religon and cultic in nature.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 06:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
216. "I didn't realize:"
In response to Reply # 211


          

You were asking questions, I thought you were a skeptic and was trying to be funny, if you have any other questions just hit me up, I'll give you more info on any of this stuff. (I just checked my inbox). I misread you.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Mon Jul-02-01 07:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
217. "My ONLY Skepticism..."
In response to Reply # 216


  

          

With the Bible is not its law, moral code, etc., etc.,

it's just the following doctrines:

1.)That Christians have the LOCK on all spiritual salvation...
The reason I say this is because as a former Christian I do know that the BIBLE encourages a search for truth...This began mine...WHY?
Because of AMEN...

One- We can stop fronting like that was a word CREATED by Hebrews because Historical evidence tells us differently...Point blank, IMHO, a WHOLE LOT of the doctrine that Christians reinforce is used to keep a barrier between the "learned" and the "laymen". Since making these claims makes them just that give me a day to rest and I GARUNTEE information on this...

Two- I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that you can't name EXACTLY where it says in the bible that GOD exists in EXACTLY
3 forms: Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Can you find this in the NT? I doubt it. In the NT, maybe, but AFTER Jesus' death....
I doubt you'll find us a verse where Jesus says exactly I AM MY FATHER AND SO IS THE SPIRIT INSIDE ME. he WILL make reference to being the son of God but let's be real? If JESUS is the PHYSICAL SON of God and I am the son of God according to the Bible then why do Christians worship him like they ARE NOT capable of doing greater things than he? And if they are capable of doing greater things than he, why don't they? Sin? It existed in his time, and though he might not have done it, his disciples weren't exactly pure...So why is it they can heal the sick and we don't? Why is it when he taught them to pray in the Gospells he said this is how you shall pray: "OUR FATHER" so if Jesus is the son of God, and I am his brother according to him, and Jesus IS god at the same time, am I God's brother at the same time? Not really? Explain please...

I noticed this and made a promise to myself as a TRUE christian...DO NOT PRACTICE WHAT HE DIDN'T TEACH! This is why I asked about the TRINITY...As we both know in the Bible God is referred to as us...So basically if that's supposed to represent Jesus being with God at the time of the birth of the world...Could that possibly mean that I was with them, unaware that I would be placed in this physical prison called the body?

don't worry I'ma dig up the juicy bits....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
IllipticallyDefined

Tue Jul-03-01 04:46 PM

  
222. "RE: My ONLY Skepticism..."
In response to Reply # 217


          

YO Soli... son you just shocked me, I'm happy my views are shared w/ other people, your so on point w/ us being w/ the source and not knowing we would be in the physical body, I do think thoough that somewhere in the gospel jesus talks about remebering where we were before we entered our physical bodies... and i also think this is where people get confused w/ reincarnation, but yo if you got aim or an email hit me up on that... peace IllipticallyDefined@hotmail.com and screename Illiptical360

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Tue Jul-03-01 06:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
223. "RE:"
In response to Reply # 217


          

>Because of AMEN...
>One- We can stop fronting like
>that was a word CREATED
>by Hebrews because Historical evidence
>tells us differently...Point blank,

Take a course on linguistic you find that words dont mean...until people agree on the meaning. In the case of Amen (so it be) it is a hebrew word that refers to God's will being done. The Hebrew amen is not the same as the Egyptian Amen

Now in spanish the word ala (pronounced Ah-la) means wing.... even though it's pronounciation is the same as the God of the Qur'an the meanings are totally different.



>Two- I'm willing to bet dollars
>to donuts that you can't
>name EXACTLY where it says
>in the bible that GOD
>exists in EXACTLY
>3 forms: Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
> Can you find this
>in the NT?

Well here's one of all of them doing something at the same time..
Matt 3: 16-17. Now all of them doing something simultaneously must mean.........That the One God (In nature and essense) is revealed in three persons (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.). I'd like glaze please.

>I noticed this and made a
>promise to myself as a
>TRUE christian

In the beginning, you stated you were a former christian ....now you're a true christian im confused.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
IllipticallyDefined

Tue Jul-03-01 09:04 PM

  
224. "RE:"
In response to Reply # 223


          

I also call myself a Christian, pick a denomination cause i won't, but I don't believe he was God like other Christians do, i don't think he died for sins, i understand the beliefs though, but its not all important to me... what i think is important is his philosophies, teachings and basic truths and the power of using his name, and I am simply a Follower of Christ which is the true defintion in simplest terms, just trying to progress everyday and not to digress...peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 09:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
239. "EXACTLY!!!...& a correction..."
In response to Reply # 224


  

          

Once you free ya mind from what PREACHERS tell you, spend QUIET time with the Bible, (without all the pomp & circumstance, hoopla & holla of the Church, AND ANYONE RAISED IN THE CHURCH, KNOWS WHAT I MEAN) and

ACTUALLY SPEND TIME REFLECTING ON NOT ONLY WHAT THE WORDS SAID, BUT WHAT THE DEEPER MEANING THE SPEAKER WAS TRYING TO CONVEY WHEN THEY SAID IT...THE BIBLE CAN BE AN AWESOME BOOK...BUT FIRST YOU MUST FREE YA MIND FROM WHAT YOU:

1.)Heard about it...GET TO KNOW IT 4 YASELF...Come to YOUR OWN conclusions...

2.)Was AND was NOT taught about it...SEARCH THE HIDDEN BOOKS OR AT LEAST MAKE AN ATTEMPT (in my case)...Those books AND the history of WHY THEY WERE LEFT OUT ARE EXTREEEEMLY IMPORTANT....

3.)ARE TAUGHT ABOUT THE RENEGADES AND PROPONENTS OF THE CHURCH...
Always keep in mind these things when reading the history of the book...
TIME PERIOD...
LOCATION...
DIFFERENT CULTURES...
SOCIOLOGY...
PSYCHOLOGY...

But I'm still studying it whenever I feel like it so...carry on...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 09:27 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
240. "I forgot my OWN correction..."
In response to Reply # 239


  

          

I said in my previous reply titled, "My ONLY skepticism.." that Jesus never said the spirit of GOD was in him...actually, it's because of him I believe the spirit of GOD is in us all...

And now that I think of it...

No

I'm not a "christian"....More of a follower of Christ...Or at least I put an effort into doing so...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Fri Jul-06-01 03:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
255. "RE: I forgot my OWN correction..."
In response to Reply # 240


          

>I said in my previous reply
>titled, "My ONLY skepticism.." that
>Jesus never said the spirit
>of GOD was in him...actually,
>it's because of him I
>believe the spirit of GOD
>is in us all...


Response: Because Jesus was God he never had to say it because scripture makes it clear, actually he said better things such as I and the Father are one. Proving his diety. If you want to see something read Matt 4 were Jesus was said to be lead by the spirit.
>
>And now that I think of
>it...
>
>No
>
>I'm not a "christian"....More of a
>follower of Christ...Or at least
>I put an effort into
>doing so...


Response: OK


------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 05:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
232. "RE: My ONLY Skepticism..."
In response to Reply # 217


          

>With the Bible is not its
>law, moral code, etc., etc.,
>
>
>it's just the following doctrines:
>
>1.)That Christians have the LOCK on
>all spiritual salvation...
>The reason I say this is
>because as a former Christian
>I do know that the
>BIBLE encourages a search for
>truth...This began mine...WHY?
>Because of AMEN...

Response: Ok I think I know here your going with this.
>
>One- We can stop fronting like
>that was a word CREATED
>by Hebrews because Historical evidence
>tells us differently...Point blank, IMHO,
>a WHOLE LOT of the
>doctrine that Christians reinforce is
>used to keep a barrier
>between the "learned" and the
>"laymen". Since making these
>claims makes them just that
>give me a day to
>rest and I GARUNTEE information
>on this...

Response: Ok, I'll wait for your info. Also it should be noted as I think Jennyfer has already stated that words could be the same but they carry different meaning into the words.Such as in John 1 were he says Jesus was the word. The term word is not original it was a popular term amonst Jews and Greeks, but its all about the meaning poured into this words.
If you'd like I can check the Hebrew and see what I find.

>Two- I'm willing to bet dollars
>to donuts that you can't
>name EXACTLY where it says
>in the bible that GOD
>exists in EXACTLY
>3 forms: Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

Response: Your kidding right. Actually we don't say God exist in three forms but rather three persons. Theres a difference.

> Can you find this
>in the NT? I
>doubt it.

Response:Your right because we don't say God exist in three forms but three persons and I can find evidence for that New and Old. Heres the Father: Matt " Our Father in Heavan. Matt 6:2 God is our heavenly father. Jesus claimed to be Yahweh John 8:58 Before Abraham I Am. (same as in Ex 3:14 I Am is God's name). Holy spirit.. Acts 5:3-4 by saying you have lied to the Holy Spirit.

Then you have Old Testament Passages such as Psalm 110 where its says the Lord says to my Lord. Meaning the God and the Son are conversing.

In the
>NT, maybe, but AFTER Jesus'
>death....
>I doubt you'll find us a
>verse where Jesus says exactly
>I AM MY FATHER AND
>SO IS THE SPIRIT INSIDE
>ME.

Response: Why would Jesus say that, this is not what the trinity teaches. You should ask what the trinity is firt before you try to debate it. You'll have a better shot that way.

he WILL make
>reference to being the son
>of God but let's be
>real? If JESUS is
>the PHYSICAL SON of God
>and I am the son
>of God according to the
>Bible then why do Christians
>worship him like they ARE
>NOT capable of doing greater
>things than he?

Response: No offense but your way off the mark here, "Son of" in a Jewish mind set means same as " only begotten" Means unique, special. When the Bible says we can do things greater than he its not referring to us becoming more powerful than him, but that we could get places he could'nt reach during his ministry.

And
>if they are capable of
>doing greater things than he,
>why don't they? Sin?

Response: Read the above statement.

>It existed in his time,
>and though he might not
>have done it, his disciples
>weren't exactly pure...So why is
>it they can heal the
>sick and we don't?

Response: Because, the healings that they used were to justify there ministries. Now of days healing is apart of the atonment but not guarenteed.

>Why is it when he
>taught them to pray in
>the Gospells he said this
>is how you shall pray:
>"OUR FATHER" so if
>Jesus is the son of
>God, and I am his
>brother according to him, and
>Jesus IS god at the
>same time, am I God's
>brother at the same time?
> Not really? Explain
>please...

Response: Yeah you need help with trinity. When Jesus used the term abba father he was showing that you could reach God on a personal level, this was foriegn to the Jews a concept unheard of.
>

Response: here is the trinity, 1)There is but one God Duet 6:4
2) There are three distinct persons within the Godhead Father,Son, Holy Spirit. 3) When we say persons of the trinity its not like Tom, Mike, and Jade it means personal distinct ways.
That means that you can identify each of the persons within the trinity because they are distinct. So the Father planned salvation, the Son accomplished it on the cross, the Holy Spirit applyes it to believers. Kind of like a triangle where there is one triangel with three seperate corners. Each corner is distint form one another and exist at the same time but this illustation falls short because the triangles are finite God is infinite so its not perfect. Solid , Liquid, Gas is a horrible one because normally water is not in the three states at the same time. By saying God has one essence and three persons it means God is one "what" three "whos". The three whos(persons) of the Godhead share what(essence). SO God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they share a comman nature.

>I noticed this and made a
>promise to myself as a
>TRUE christian...DO NOT PRACTICE WHAT
>HE DIDN'T TEACH! This
>is why I asked about
>the TRINITY...

Resonse: But the bible shows us that there is a trinity.

As we both know
>in the Bible God is
>referred to as us...


Response: No, the us used in Gen 1:26 refers to grammatics not the trinity. It's called a plural of majesty.

So basically
>if that's supposed to represent
>Jesus being with God at
>the time of the birth
>of the world...

Response: No, not at all.

Could that possibly
>mean that I was with
>them, unaware that I would
>be placed in this physical
>prison called the body?

Response: No, God breathed the life of man into his body, so the spirit was also created.
>
>don't worry I'ma dig up the
>juicy bits....
Response: No prob

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
IllipticallyDefined

Wed Jul-04-01 06:35 AM

  
234. "RE: My ONLY Skepticism..."
In response to Reply # 232


          

Think about it thought, we were always here just not in this form but are atoms that make up our body have always been here... If God is the source and we came from He, then we have always been here always existing, and if we were nothing then that is still something

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 07:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
237. "RE: we had starting points........"
In response to Reply # 234


          

>Think about it thought, we were
>always here just not in
>this form but are atoms
>that make up our body
>have always been here... If
>God is the source and
> we came from He,
>then we have always been
>here always existing, and if
>we were nothing then that
>is still something

No you didnt always exist....the only entity that didnt have a starting point is God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God's existance is timeless, and during the creation of the universe God created Time in our realm, and there are specific time for things to occur or come into existance. In 1923 "you" did not exist.....your existance began when your mummy and diddy decided to smut each other down and caused your existance. The time before their act of procreation you didn't exist.

Now sure the atoms that make all humans are around (Atoms didn't always exist either) but the special emotions, thought patterns, physical form and parents that make you... "Illicipally Defined" wasn't always here. They all had beginnings

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Solitayre
Charter member
8114 posts
Wed Jul-04-01 10:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
241. "1 question..."
In response to Reply # 237


  

          

Didn't Illeptical start off ORIGINALLY as 1 single solitayree sperm cell...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it influences peoples WHOLE lives, i
know a gazillion people that
live and die hip hop....it
seeps out of their pores,
they smell like a turntable
& shit. - Fire on Hip Hop

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
IllipticallyDefined

Wed Jul-04-01 07:41 PM

  
244. "RE: we had starting points........"
In response to Reply # 237


          

nah my physical body that i see now in front of me didn't exist, but my spirit was w/ god, which you said always existed...

No you didnt always exist....the only entity that didnt have a starting point is God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God's existance is timeless, and during the creation of the universe God created Time in our realm, and there are specific time for things to occur or come into existance. In 1923 "you" did not exist.....your existance began when your mummy and diddy decided to smut each other down and caused your existance. The time before their act of procreation you didn't exist.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 09:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
250. "RE: we had starting points........"
In response to Reply # 244


          

>nah my physical body that i
>see now in front of
>me didn't exist, but my
>spirit was w/ god, which
>you said always existed...

I never said your spirit existed with God....Your spirit began at conception with your physical body.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
IllipticallyDefined

Wed Jul-04-01 07:43 PM

  
245. "RE: we had starting points........"
In response to Reply # 237


          

hows the theory go? matter can be created nor destroyed? God has always been here and his creation has come out of nothingness, nothingness existed

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
IllipticallyDefined

Thu Jul-05-01 04:54 AM

  
247. "RE: we had starting points........"
In response to Reply # 245


          

sorry matter can't be destroyed nor created...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Jennyfer
Charter member
202 posts
Thu Jul-05-01 09:59 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
251. "RE:"
In response to Reply # 245


          

>hows the theory go? matter can
>be created nor destroyed? God
>has always been here and
>his creation has come out
>of nothingness, nothingness existed


It's More like
1- God Created our universe
2- Something existed before our universe came into existance
3- That something is God
4- Something Created Everything

ultimately nothingness is a concept because what we see today as something didn't always exist but one entity always existed (God).



  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
IllipticallyDefined

Thu Jul-05-01 06:35 PM

  
253. "RE:"
In response to Reply # 251


          

true and don't forget that everything came from God, it was in him and came out... but this can be interpreted many ways for instance the blueprint for my next song is in my head as a thought until it goes on paper and then is a musical composition... but you don't get this do you? or do you?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #13104 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com