It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did King David take orders from Satan…???

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: akushla99
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source..edit.


The writers of such scripture should have been 'Vetted" by the RCC .These could all be content notes; 'make believe' script writing for the future Grandiose Epics..Masada, Ben-Hur, Ten Commandments, Spartacus, The Robe, Jesus Christ Superstar that have a more important purpose as funster 'FILMATICS" influencing common movie goers (no idea of diabolical intent); subliminally force feed a message as entertainment.


Hahaha...vetted.as it is, the proofreading ain't over yet...obviously...staff's having a problem with continuity...

:thumbs up:
Å99

Big Time continuity problem. Proofreading [memorizing] the script generally comes BEFORE the production event (no ad-libs), if a publication; edits should happen before going to the printer.
edit on 6-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99



Originally posted by Akushla99
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source...

OP question sounds like - 'What is the difference between a bucket?'...

Å99


Totally incorrect; those Bible passages clearly, must have had an original source…

And how do you know they weren’t inspired…seems a little presumptuous IMO…

Also, your Cleary not reading between the lines (once again lol)…

I posted the OP question, NOT because I didn’t know the answer to the question, but to try and highlight a key aspect, on the nature of belief in God in the Bible…

Only one poster, posted the correct answer so far…IMO, and guess what…it wasn’t you lol

- JC



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: akushla99



Originally posted by Akushla99
As 'spaghettied' in the OP question...pared down to the blindingly obvious...

...neither was 'written' by a Source...
...and neither was 'inspired' by a Source...

OP question sounds like - 'What is the difference between a bucket?'...

Å99


Totally incorrect; those Bible passages clearly, must have had an original source…

And how do you know they weren’t inspired…seems a little presumptuous IMO…

Also, your Cleary not reading between the lines (once again lol)…

I posted the OP question, NOT because I didn’t know the answer to the question, but to try and highlight a key aspect, on the nature of belief in God in the Bible…

Only one poster, posted the correct answer so far…IMO, and guess what…it wasn’t you lol

- JC




It's clearly written...'S' for Source...there is no small 's' in my quoted passage - pay more attention to what you think you are reading...I have no doubt (given what I've just pointed out) you might be apt to do it on a regular basis, passing off what you think you knoe, and haughtily assuming it is 'Correct'.

The OP question is a valid one...the correct answer is...

Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source - we can chase each others' tails on this, but it answers the question - too bad it's not to your liking, but I had no idea that was a prerequisite for posting - point taken...I will remember the stricture in future and ignore it



"...the correct answer IMO, and guess what...it wasn't you lol"

...so, IYO...it wasn't me who 'guess what', agreed with you...lol...

I expect better...from funsterclub patrons...


Å99
edit on 6-11-2015 by akushla99 because: Addddddd

edit on 6-11-2015 by akushla99 because: Adddddd



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99



Originally posted by Akushla99
It's clearly written...'S' for Source...there is no small 's' in my quoted passage - pay more attention to what you think you are reading...


That’s the weirdest/funniest back peddling, I’ve ever seen lol…one can ALMOST admire it, from a certain perspective…





Originally posted by Akushla99
I have no doubt (given what I've just pointed out) you might be apt to do it on a regular basis, passing off what you think you knoe, and haughtily assuming it is 'Correct'.


Didn’t you just do the same thing…with your “Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source” comment…???

Btw – The word “know” has a “w” on the end of it…just so you know lol



Originally posted by Akushla99
The OP question is a valid one...


Thanks buddy





Originally posted by Akushla99
the correct answer is...

Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source - we can chase each others' tails on this, but it answers the question - too bad it's not to your liking, but I had no idea that was a prerequisite for posting - point taken...I will remember the stricture in future and ignore it

Å01


Your opinion has been noted…taken on board…etc…

But again, you presume I didn’t like something you’ve stated, when I only respectfully disagree with it…no offense intended…

But please, feel free to comment on anything I’ve written on ATS. I rather enjoy your input…even your more wacky, wordsmithery/attempted… stuff lol


- JC



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: akushla99



Originally posted by Akushla99
It's clearly written...'S' for Source...there is no small 's' in my quoted passage - pay more attention to what you think you are reading...


That’s the weirdest/funniest back peddling, I’ve ever seen lol…one can ALMOST admire it, from a certain perspective…





Originally posted by Akushla99
I have no doubt (given what I've just pointed out) you might be apt to do it on a regular basis, passing off what you think you knoe, and haughtily assuming it is 'Correct'.


Didn’t you just do the same thing…with your “Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source” comment…???

Btw – The word “know” has a “w” on the end of it…just so you know lol



Originally posted by Akushla99
The OP question is a valid one...


Thanks buddy





Originally posted by Akushla99
the correct answer is...

Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source - we can chase each others' tails on this, but it answers the question - too bad it's not to your liking, but I had no idea that was a prerequisite for posting - point taken...I will remember the stricture in future and ignore it

Å01


Your opinion has been noted…taken on board…etc…

But again, you presume I didn’t like something you’ve stated, when I only respectfully disagree with it…no offense intended…

But please, feel free to comment on anything I’ve written on ATS. I rather enjoy your input…even your more wacky, wordsmithery/attempted… stuff lol


- JC




Hahaha...backpeddling now?!

...afraid not, that original post was altered or edited in no way whatsoever after posting...there is a very CLEAR large 'S', denoting it's meaning...

Like I said Joecroft, if you missed this (and want to call it backpeddling) I cannot take you seriously...that is unfortunate...

Knoe - wordsmith...please don't lower yourself to this...seriously...

No offence taken...but I really do expect a bit of honesty...my quote was very clear, you mashed the meaning...that's undeniable...the implications of that are fairly comical...especially since the 'correct' answer to the OP question was only IYO...

...and my handle is Å99...not Å01...knoe wot eye meen?

Å99
edit on 6-11-2015 by akushla99 because: Adddddd



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft
We are the VIP members (creators) of the 'Funster Club' (Chuckle Hut Café is around the back).


edit on 6-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I did not read all of the replies in this thread...so I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said already or not. The way I see this matter is....if we see Satan as the "justice" side of God then we can understand why he is called the accuser of the brethren. Justice apart from mercy can be cruel and unforgiving. Qualities that would be attributable to Satan and yet they are as much a part of righteousness as is mercy. Psalm 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

So in my eyes for God to apply unforgiving "justice" to Israel is allowing Satan ( the justice side of God ) to rise up against them. I think of the two covering Cherubs over the mercy seat as representing the justice side of God and the mercy side of God.

As far as why the God of the old testament seemed to be much more cruel and unforgiving. I believe it stems from God using a progressive order of methods to bring about righteousness. The old testament law of an eye for an eye ..is poetic justice with no provision for mercy. We can see these attempts tried in various ways....Samson was a man endowed with super human strength and actuated by the spirit of God. Yet he failed to bring about lasting righteousness ( I believe because of broken promises made to Delilah by Samson ). Later we see Solomon endowed with supernatural wisdom and that also failed ..

I realize that God must have known that these attempts would fail...yet because he had an onlooking audience of finite beings (angels) he had to play out these scenarios and exhaust all reasonable possibilities( for their sakes) before offering Jesus as a sacrifice.

As far as what I see regarding the census...By having the fighting men of Israel numbered it would cause David to trust in the power of his fighting force ..rather then in God's protection. And by the same token if he knew his forces were out "numbered" it could cause his heart to fail and create fear. God did not want David to ever trust in the arm of flesh and by numbering his forces it was defining the strength of that arm of flesh...so to speak.

Yes. I do love scripture wars (by others). This stuff is tricky; and re-reading this threads content is a one of a kind as its breadth, content and potential accusation will never be addressed in the same manner again. Never had anything to do with David; it was always Paul vs Satan.
edit on 6-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Akushla99
Hahaha...backpeddling now?!

...afraid not, that original post was altered or edited in no way whatsoever after posting...there is a very CLEAR large 'S', denoting it's meaning...

Like I said Joecroft, if you missed this (and want to call it backpeddling) I cannot take you seriously...that is unfortunate...


I hate to break it to you, but I haven’t been able to take you seriously since
this post…way back lol




Originally posted by Akushla99
Knoe - wordsmith...please don't lower yourself to this...seriously...


Yikes…are you gona fry me lol




Originally posted by Akushla99
No offence taken...but I really do expect a bit of honesty...my quote was very clear, you mashed the meaning...that's undeniable...the implications of that are fairly comical...especially since the 'correct' answer to the OP question was only IYO...


I don’t think the meaning was lost at all, unless you can find another poster who thinks so…

Plus, you clarified your meaning further down in your post anyway, and I addressed it…with a question, which you’ve yet to answer…here it is again…


“how do you know they weren’t inspired…?”


I mean, how do you know, they weren’t struck/zapped with a God like force, and then wrote an inspired piece; direct from the God/Source/source…lol

Please… give me a break…




Originally posted by Akushla99
...and my handle is Å99...not Å01...knoe wot eye meen?

Å99


Just thought you could use the extra 1%, to make you whole again lol


On a side note – why do you keep writing know as “knoe”; you’ve done it quite a few times in your other posts….just curious…?


- JC



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Akushla99
Hahaha...backpeddling now?!

...afraid not, that original post was altered or edited in no way whatsoever after posting...there is a very CLEAR large 'S', denoting it's meaning...

Like I said Joecroft, if you missed this (and want to call it backpeddling) I cannot take you seriously...that is unfortunate...


I hate to break it to you, but I haven’t been able to take you seriously since
this post…way back lol




Originally posted by Akushla99
Knoe - wordsmith...please don't lower yourself to this...seriously...


Yikes…are you gona fry me lol




Originally posted by Akushla99
No offence taken...but I really do expect a bit of honesty...my quote was very clear, you mashed the meaning...that's undeniable...the implications of that are fairly comical...especially since the 'correct' answer to the OP question was only IYO...


I don’t think the meaning was lost at all, unless you can find another poster who thinks so…

Plus, you clarified your meaning further down in your post anyway, and I addressed it…with a question, which you’ve yet to answer…here it is again…


“how do you know they weren’t inspired…?”


I mean, how do you know, they weren’t struck/zapped with a God like force, and then wrote an inspired piece; direct from the God/Source/source…lol

Please… give me a break…




Originally posted by Akushla99
...and my handle is Å99...not Å01...knoe wot eye meen?

Å99


Just thought you could use the extra 1%, to make you whole again lol


On a side note – why do you keep writing know as “knoe”; you’ve done it quite a few times in your other posts….just curious…?


- JC




"How do you know they weren’t inspired…?"

...here Joecroft...How do you knoe they were?...

The OP poses a non-question...one of three possible answers (at it's pared base) was my reply...I stand by it...either one or the other is true, or, they are both false (the OP already assumes they can't both be the truth), and are neither inspired, nor divine of origin...if they were, there would be no question for me to have aksed in an OP, in which I gnu the answer ("IMO")...

Another poster has already dunce-hatted the obvious inconsistency...them being both - 'inspired' or 'divine', or how one could be over the other...everything else is a comedy routine...


Å99



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft
Could you respond to Harry Joy? I think Knoe Means KNO means NO means KNOW.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Joecroft
Could you respond to Harry Joy? I think Knoe Means KNO means NO means KNOW.



Well but, no VHB...only the little golden book is allowed this latitude or questionable meaning...remember, 'divinely inspired'...we can allow ourselves to be diversionary toward an assumed spelling 'mistake' written in 2015, but the answer to an OP question about events, personages and source, written by dead mortals is beyond reproach...

Å99
edit on 6-11-2015 by akushla99 because: Addddddd



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
originally posted by: akushla99
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Joecroft

vhb: Could you respond to HarryJoy? I think Knoe Means KNO means NO means KNOW.


akushla99: Well but, no VHB...only the little golden book is allowed this latitude or questionable meaning...remember, 'divinely inspired'..Å99

Locate, Arrest, Confine and interrogate this FIEND. Will it eventually tell us the truth of its nature and broader diabolical intent to further subjugate Mankind?
edit on 6-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Joecroft
"How do you know they weren’t inspired…?"





Originally posted by Akushla99
...here Joecroft...How do you knoe they were?...



But I haven't made any claims either way, in regards to them being inspired or not, but you on the other hand, have!!! lol I only posed the questions…

And also when your posing certain Biblical questions, they have to be posed from the believers point of view to some degree, in other words, certain aspects have to be regarded as givens, whether I accept them or not...


So the ball is back in your court…?




Originally posted by Akushla99
The OP poses a non-question...one of three possible answers (at it's pared base) was my reply...I stand by it...either one or the other is true, or, they are both false (the OP already assumes they can't both be the truth),


No, the OP is only posing the question, as to what the truth is/might be; giving food for thought etc……again you’re assuming incorrectly…you seem to do that a lot…just an observation…




Originally posted by Akushla99
and are neither inspired, nor divine of origin...if they were, there would be no question for me to have aksed in an OP, in which I gnu the answer ("IMO")...

Another poster has already dunce-hatted the obvious inconsistency...them being both - 'inspired' or 'divine', or how one could be over the other...everything else is a comedy routine...


Well, you could at least have tried to suspend your beliefs/opinions, for one second, and maybe try to answer the OP, from a hypothetical/Christian stance/viewpoint…just a thought…


- JC



edit on 6-11-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Joecroft
"How do you know they weren’t inspired…?"





Originally posted by Akushla99
...here Joecroft...How do you knoe they were?...



But I haven't made any claims either way, in regards to them being inspired or not, but you on the other hand, have!!! lol I only posed the questions…

And also when your posing certain Biblical questions, they have to be posed from the believers point of view to some degree, in other words, certain aspects have to be regarded as givens, whether I accept them or not...


So the ball is back in your court…?




Originally posted by Akushla99
The OP poses a non-question...one of three possible answers (at it's pared base) was my reply...I stand by it...either one or the other is true, or, they are both false (the OP already assumes they can't both be the truth),


No, the OP is only posing the question, as to what the truth is/might be; giving food for thought etc……again you’re assuming incorrectly…you seem to do that a lot…just an observation…




Originally posted by Akushla99
and are neither inspired, nor divine of origin...if they were, there would be no question for me to have aksed in an OP, in which I gnu the answer ("IMO")...

Another poster has already dunce-hatted the obvious inconsistency...them being both - 'inspired' or 'divine', or how one could be over the other...everything else is a comedy routine...


Well, you could at least have tried to suspend your beliefs/opinions, for one second, and maybe try to answer the OP, from a hypothetical/Christian stance/viewpoint…just a thought…


- JC




...Your 'thought', not mine...

That is my intelligent christian viewpoint...

"I posted the OP question, NOT because I didn’t know the answer to the question, but to try and highlight a key aspect, on the nature of belief in God in the Bible…

Only one poster, posted the correct answer so far…IMO, and guess what…it wasn’t you lol"

...not gelling Joecroft...

Å99



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Akushla99
...Your 'thought', not mine...

That is my intelligent christian viewpoint...


Hmmmm…



Originally posted by Akushla99
the correct answer is...

Neither were 'inspired' or 'written' by God/Source –


So this is your “intelligent Christian viewpoint”, okayyyyyyy….

I ‘d rather not go down the… “flogging the dead horse” routine again lol if that’s ok with you…




Originally posted by Akushla99
"I posted the OP question, NOT because I didn’t know the answer to the question, but to try and highlight a key aspect, on the nature of belief in God in the Bible…

Only one poster, posted the correct answer so far…IMO, and guess what…it wasn’t you lol"

...not gelling Joecroft...


Yes, I still believe only one poster on the entire thread, came to only correct conclusion; a conclusion that I also concur with…

Peace


- Jc



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

"And also when your posing certain Biblical questions, they have to be posed from the believers point of view to some degree, in other words, certain aspects have to be regarded as givens, whether I accept them or not..."

'The bible is the word of God...
But how can you be so sure?...
Because the bible says so...
But why believe the bible?...
Because it is infallible...
But how do you know it is infallible?...
Because the bible is the word of God'

...you mean, like this?

Å99



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

"Yes, I still believe only one poster on the entire thread, came to only correct conclusion; a conclusion that I also concur with…" Quote Joecroft

I can't assail this Joecroft. It is truthful, and includes the words 'believe', and, that I concur with...can't fault opinion...

Peace

Å99
edit on 6-11-2015 by akushla99 because: Adddddd



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

My take…
God uses Satan when it suits Him, as in the above – making both verses simple truth.

For instance, when the Son of God who gave Judas the bread, that is when Satan entered Judas Iscariot. It is obvious from the next verse in John 13:27, that Yeshua knew exactly what was happening – and also why! Because without the betrayal by Judas, the crucifixion – the crucial sacrifice of the Lamb of God - would never have happened.

In John 17:12, Yeshua says that he has kept all of those that God gave him, except for the ‘son of perdition’ - that Scripture [prophecy] might be fulfilled.

In the Scriptures, it is obvious that Judas also has another central role in prophecy.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, it says that the second coming will not happen until the falling away [from previous religious beliefs – the Apostasy] comes first, which in turn, reveals the man of sin / son of perdition.

In Revelation 17:11, is says that the Eighth Head/King was [alive], is not [alive] will go into perdition [spiritual destruction]. Some verses further along, it says that the world will marvel when this King comes out of the abyss, except for those whose names are written in the Book of Life.

The fact that he was alive, is not alive, yet shall be present [alive and well] shows he is the ‘resurrected son of Satan’, appearing on the world stage as the Antichrist.

An all-powerful Creator God would not allow this to happen, unless it suited His will and purposes!



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Akushla99
"And also when your posing certain Biblical questions, they have to be posed from the believers point of view to some degree, in other words, certain aspects have to be regarded as givens, whether I accept them or not..."

'The bible is the word of God...
But how can you be so sure?...
Because the bible says so...
But why believe the bible?...
Because it is infallible...
But how do you know it is infallible?...
Because the bible is the word of God'

...you mean, like this?

Å99



Well, partly, but remember there’s a lot of Christian denominations out there with differing opinions; so not all will accept everything on your list above…

And also, I don’t have to accept everything that someone believes in, just to be able to discuss it with them…

Plus, I have to frame the OP, from the standpoint of standard Christian beliefs etc…in order to get the discussion rolling.


- JC



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: akushla99




Originally posted by Akushla99
"And also when your posing certain Biblical questions, they have to be posed from the believers point of view to some degree, in other words, certain aspects have to be regarded as givens, whether I accept them or not..."

'The bible is the word of God...
But how can you be so sure?...
Because the bible says so...
But why believe the bible?...
Because it is infallible...
But how do you know it is infallible?...
Because the bible is the word of God'

...you mean, like this?

Å99



Well, partly, but remember there’s a lot of Christian denominations out there with differing opinions; so not all will accept everything on your list above…

And also, I don’t have to accept everything that someone believes in, just to be able to discuss it with them…

Plus, I have to frame the OP, from the standpoint of standard Christian beliefs etc…in order to get the discussion rolling.


- JC




Noooooo...you don't say!? Differing denominations with differing opinions, you say?

What you quoted was not a 'list'...it is a logic fruit loop...

...and, agreed, neither does anyone need to 'accept' everything that someone believes in, just to be able to discuss it with them - but, if as you say, we are to adopt a hypothetical stance that means accepting certain things (which ones is your call, for this exercise) and coming to a conclusion that you agree with is easy...been going for years, contained pretty much in the loop quoted...indulge my fantasy and lets discuss how it could be, that, Jerry kills Tom in episode 68, but Tom reanimates in the very next episode...those kinds of discussions need tending...65 years of tending...a drop in the ocean compared with the 'divinely inspired' writing of the little golden book - that's a lot of time to discuss, alter, edit, denominate, opinion differ and splinter into enclaves of truth based on opinions of opinions of opinions etc. etc. etc...because, the prime directive requires that it is the word of God - from there you are home and hosed, oh, unless you want to discuss the inconsistencies as portrayed in the OP (which only one other person answered to your approval)...because somehow, you do gno the answer to the Tom & Jerry conundrum...if only you could 'suspend' your belief...

Å99



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join