The Bible is not the word of god

page: 29
2
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   


The Book proves a very good description of who God is and how He relates to us. I'll send a copy at my expense if anyone wishes to read.


The bible only describe's one god out of many through out history. And does a very poor job at that with the many contradictive statement's about this one god.




This implications of the statement was that is was only one book by one author. This is not the case in the collection of books in the Book, also called The Bible. Also, the Bible does not claim to be God en totale. In fact it says the opposite. That God is living, present, and we can have a personal relationship with Him as a great source of guidance.


He/She never stated anything that would imply one authorship for the bible.

He/She said : "how can one book be the only true religious scripture,"

As I pointed out, the bible can be consider one book as a whole, so the statement that was made was perfectly valid. Your taking the statement out of context and applying new meaning to it.




No use experimenting when you already have the results. They're documented already in the same Book we're discussing. Any meddling on my part would put more "human" factor in the equation so I'd rather those who are interested go to the source.


If your talking about the Messianic prophecies, then no. Nothing has been proven by way of Jesus. He goes against many of the prophecies nor does he fulfill most of them. And no, there was no virgin birth prophecy for the Messiah. Nor would a virgin birth lead to a lineage through Joseph and to top that all off, the final 'result', Mary's lineage is clearly given in Luke 1:36 which is not of Davidic lineage and invalidate's any furthur claim's to Jesus being of Davidic lineage.



I did not claim this test would prove the Bible. Many tests may lead to a conclusion which can help. Per my many statements to the effect, we need to find God to know who God is and whether or not these are His words.


How are we truely trying to find god when we're applying ourselve's to only one god. There are many god's. Most of them much older then the Christian god. We also have to ask ourselve's ... Which Christian god is the right one. Every Christian has their own opinions on who god is and how he works. This is just silly. How can one even begin to fathom a supreme infinite being who exist's outside of existance? The human mind is finite and thus, there is no comprehensible way for anyone to 'know' god, if god truely exist's and isn't a man made concept.



Ah, so it does work. Test #1 Complete. Thank you. Shall we continue with more? Or, should we just skip to the end and work on establishing a working relationship with God?


The test was never finnished. Most certainly not by me, nor by 99.999% of the human population. As for a personal relationship with god, as the Bible state's.. "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Does that sound right? Or do you follow what Jesus says instead? "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

By personal relationship with God, by which route are we discussing here?




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
It becomes more clear to me each day that this debate is pointless, purely because no-one can prove a darn thing 100%. The human mind is one of logic, the heart based on faith. Faith, is what religion is entirely based on.....not facts, but belief in someones writings stating the writings are fact.

Logic is based on what can be made sense of, practical common sense.

This debate has been going on for hundreds of years. If you all honestly believe you will find answers through debating a dead horse.....have fun.
None of you will come out winners, which is obviously what some are trying to achieve.....to prove the other wrong. It won't happen people. Get over it.
Observing the nature of mankind is a truly saddening thing, indeed.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
The bible only describe's one god out of many through out history.


...but it does explain why.


Originally posted by Prot0n
And does a very poor job at that with the many contradictive statement's about this one god.


Opinion. You're entiled to yours though I am more interested in facts.


Originally posted by Prot0n
He/She never stated anything that would imply one authorship for the bible.


It was written by different people who can attest (hence the name "testament") that:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

- 1 Peter 1:16-21.

I realize your argument is not with me, but will try to help resolve nonetheless. I also know that to non-believers quoting scripture isn't much help, but candidly I couldn't have said it better myself.


Originally posted by Prot0n
He/She said : "how can one book be the only true religious scripture,"

As I pointed out, the bible can be consider one book as a whole, so the statement that was made was perfectly valid. Your taking the statement out of context and applying new meaning to it.


My statement was one of fact to recognize that it this Book is a collection of many books spanning a huge timeframe. Ad infinitum with the argument. Call it a single book if you like, but it's like calling a mountain a anthill.


Originally posted by Prot0n
If your talking about the Messianic prophecies, then no. Nothing has been proven by way of Jesus. He goes against many of the prophecies nor does he fulfill most of them. And no, there was no virgin birth prophecy for the Messiah.


Yes there was, but I suspect you already know that.



Originally posted by Prot0n
Nor would a virgin birth lead to a lineage through Joseph and to top that all off, the final 'result', Mary's lineage is clearly given in Luke 1:36 which is not of Davidic lineage and invalidate's any furthur claim's to Jesus being of Davidic lineage.


I don't know what Luke 1:36 has to do with anything we're discussing here. Actually it's Joseph's lineage that's given in Luke 3:23.


Originally posted by Prot0n
How are we truely trying to find god when we're applying ourselve's to only one god.


"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."


Originally posted by Prot0n
There are many god's.


But only one that is living.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Most of them much older then the Christian god.


What god was created before "In the Beginning..."?


Originally posted by Prot0n
We also have to ask ourselve's ... Which Christian god is the right one.


There is only One. No buffet of choices here.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Every Christian has their own opinions on who god is and how he works.


And some have facts.


Originally posted by Prot0n
This is just silly.


I find it serious and important.


Originally posted by Prot0n
How can one even begin to fathom a supreme infinite being who exist's outside of existance?


Good question. God being God, how could any human totally comprehend Him? I'd say none...but we know a bit about Him with His interactions with us.


Originally posted by Prot0n
The human mind is finite and thus, there is no comprehensible way for anyone to 'know' god, if god truely exist's and isn't a man made concept.


To know Him does not mean to know all of Him and understand all that He is. Some of this lack of comprehension is alleviated post-mortem.


Originally posted by Prot0n
The test was never finnished.


It was agreed that this works. Anyone disagree?


Originally posted by Prot0n
Most certainly not by me, nor by 99.999% of the human population.


You overestimate yourself and underestimate 99.999% of the human population. Please provide data to support this statistic.


Originally posted by Prot0n
As for a personal relationship with god, as the Bible state's.. "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Does that sound right?


Yes.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Or do you follow what Jesus says instead? "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."


God is near all who call to Him. He who believes in Christ will enter the presence of God.


Originally posted by Prot0n
By personal relationship with God, by which route are we discussing here?


As you've quoted above. You want God near you? Call upon Him. Want to enter His presence? "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." - Romans 10:9. It isn't rocket science folks. For some reason we like to make things more complicated than they really are.


[edit on 22-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   


...but it does explain why.


In the author's own opinion's. But then again, nearly ever religous text does this same thing, explain's why their god(s) are the one true god(s).



Opinion. You're entiled to yours though I am more interested in facts.


You seem only interested in the 'Christian' fact's. This is abit onesided and doesn't help anything at all.



My statement was one of fact to recognize that it this Book is a collection of many books spanning a huge timeframe. Ad infinitum with the argument. Call it a single book if you like, but it's like calling a mountain a anthill.


It's been duly noted already that it's a collection of books by various author's. Let's take this as an example. There's certain sci-fi books, the book itself has one title, but the individual stories are all authored by different people. We still refer to the book as a book in it's entirety, as a whole. If you really want to nitpick and claim that one can't refer to the Bible (that being the title of one book containing a collection of various stories authored by many different individuals), then that's your choice.



Yes there was, but I suspect you already know that.


If you'd bothered researching the Jewish prophecies that the Christians are reliant upon you'll come to learn that there is no virgin birth prophecied. If you read the Bible in correct order and context you'l also see Mary is not of Davidic lineage as well. Jesus fulfills nothing.



I don't know what Luke 1:36 has to do with anything we're discussing here. Actually it's Joseph's lineage that's given in Luke 3:23.


It has a little bit to do with what I previously stated. If we assume the virgin birth story and given the traditional customs back in those days and given the clearly stated lineage for Mary, we see that Jesus' lineage is not of David.



"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."


Good point, but this is of the Christian god and pre-assume's that the Christian god is the only god. This does little as far as trying to find the one true god.



But only one that is living.


This can be highly debated. There are many other religions out there who claim this very same thing and many different sects of Christianity who claim to hold truth over the other's.



What god was created before "In the Beginning..."?


This pre-assume's that the Christian god was the first, both scripturally and historically. This simply isn't so. The ancient Summerian culture, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese all predate Christian faith and monthiestic belief's. Both scripturally and historically.



There is only One. No buffet of choices here.


Well, this is pre-assuming that YOUR version and concept of who god is would be the right one. This can be highly debated amongst the plethora of Christian sects.



And some have facts.


Really? Care to explain more on this? Have Christians proven what exist's outside the universe that no one else on the planet can deny the evidence for? There are no fact's, just assumption's.



Good question. God being God, how could any human totally comprehend Him? I'd say none...but we know a bit about Him with His interactions with us.


We're still stuck on the pre-assumption of your version of god. This does little to show us anything.




To know Him does not mean to know all of Him and understand all that He is. Some of this lack of comprehension is alleviated post-mortem.


If there is an afterlife as described in the Christian bible. But given that Christianity relies upon Jewish prophecies and orginates from Jewish belief's, you should really take a look at what the Jewish people back then had to say about the afterlife.




It was agreed that this works. Anyone disagree?


Technically it hasn't been shown to work, it's only been shown to be philosophically the right thing to do.




You overestimate yourself and underestimate 99.999% of the human population. Please provide data to support this statistic.


I don't see how I overestimated myself. And watch the news, this isn't a perfect world.




God is near all who call to Him. He who believes in Christ will enter the presence of God.


You do realize those to verse's are in contradiction to one another ... The verse Jesus said is basically calling for an intermediary wheras the first verse says nothing of this sort. Ther first verse doesn't mention that one need to believe in Jesus.




As you've quoted above. You want God near you? Call upon Him. Want to enter His presence? "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." - Romans 10:9. It isn't rocket science folks. For some reason we like to make things more complicated than they really are.


Jesus is not lord. The Messiah is not a pagan demi-god.

"God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
This thread is titled "The Bible is not the word of god".

It aint.

If it exists, this god being, surely would be able to communicate
with its flock more effectively. We are all aware of "Chinese whispers" and the failability of oral communication. That is why writing has become an important advance for humankinds alleged civilisation. Why would this all knowing, miracle producing entity talk to a select few and then allow a period of time to elapse before the written word is scribed.In the case of the new testament periods of up to hundreds of years have been mentioned. Perhaps thats why details cant agree e.g. the four gospels accounts of the opening of the tomb.
All three Abrahamic belief systems seem to rely on some bloke saying, that a voice told him this, that or the other (sometimes by means of a burning bush). This so called important work was given to people who apparently could not write. It then had to wait a considerable period of time before someone wrote the word (Chinese whispers).
Ocassionally a few words were written and given to a priveliged elite. Even then inconveniently on a clay tablet that convenienly was broken.

If this supreme entity exists it does not need humans to defend it in an effort to ingratiate themselves with it..because its a jealous god, who rules by fear and paranoia.
Surely ,it does not need scruffy, obnoxious, rehabilated drunks shouting, singing and harranging shoppers saturday mornings in our city centres.

Looking at the state of the world and the contribution that religion has towards it, I would have thought that if any omnipresent entity should choose any time in history, to let humans know the "word" the time was now. I dont see any sign of this supreme creature.

The bible is the censored word of man. The christian bit a selection of dead sea scrolls that were used to confirm the staus quo... what of the other documents? (this is similar to the muslim creation of the fairy tale of mohammed by the destruction of all originals when
the current version was fabricated all those years ago).

It is nothing but the interpretation of several fairy tales, in a compendium to strike fear into the gullible. Nothing more.

I also believe that it is not the word of god because you have to exist to write a book..unless god is a nom de plume, of course.

I eagerly await all your resonses.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

In the author's own opinion's. But then again, nearly ever religous text does this same thing, explain's why their god(s) are the one true god(s).



As common known, there is only one true God, or migh be one that is all and therefore unjudgable or judged in unlimited ways. hahah!

might also be that different names might be given to the same, I heard somewhere before he would like to be called Allah, or YHWH, I just feel his appearance.

All the worshipping done by us must be to him, or He will never receive it, so you might get lost. Yes, and then you worship false ones, idols or I don't know, whatever you might believe what the superpower above you is, governments I hear you say? yes, listen to their words, you'll get far.. behind ah well.. who am I kidding..


Originally posted by Prot0n
You seem only interested in the 'Christian' fact's. This is abit onesided and doesn't help anything at all.



do you mean by christian, one that is teached by the book? well, the parables and text gives much insight, or better, they gives us common topics to talk about, so we get a common perspective on things, or I mean, when this book is known by everyone, one can debate any subject at hand if he would like, .... in my opinion also


Originally posted by Prot0n

It's been duly noted already that it's a collection of books by various author's. Let's take this as an example. There's certain sci-fi books, the book itself has one title, but the individual stories are all authored by different people. We still refer to the book as a book in it's entirety, as a whole. If you really want to nitpick and claim that one can't refer to the Bible (that being the title of one book containing a collection of various stories authored by many different individuals), then that's your choice.




I'd say, pick a bit up on the previuous reply.



Originally posted by Prot0n

If you'd bothered researching the Jewish prophecies that the Christians are reliant upon you'll come to learn that there is no virgin birth prophecied. If you read the Bible in correct order and context you'l also see Mary is not of Davidic lineage as well.



one might see it as a bit of fantasy like, but miracles do appear by him.. ..... ever read about a russian girl crying diamants?



Originally posted by Prot0n
Jesus fulfills nothing.



how does that react on you? what do you fulfill then?



Originally posted by Prot0n
Good point, but this is of the Christian god and pre-assume's that the Christian god is the only god. This does little as far as trying to find the one true god.



You've labeled God now, to be one of christians, so you seperate, when you talk about a christian god, and a muslim god, then you are allready worshipping two false ones, it is in fact the one that is near, but there is a lot told about him, Him tried to be explained. I find this book quite fascinating and explains in a simple way our nature, and is easy to use for balancing, to get to know right from wrong, in yourself, and to understand God's nature plus that of your own, ah just showing some respect to the book, which I have.. read it and heaven will knock on your door, for thy wilt knock on it by reading..


Originally posted by Prot0n

This pre-assume's that the Christian god was the first, both scripturally and historically. This simply isn't so. The ancient Summerian culture, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese all predate Christian faith and monthiestic belief's. Both scripturally and historically.




heheh, but God is that which was first, or always ah hell I can't explain. And stop labeling... christian god, the book isn't all fairytale.. some that might claim themselve christian might still be worshipping 'false' gods, or sending their worship to a wrong ideal. Better say the God of the Bible then, hu but still, there are two Gods right, the one from old and the one from the new testament? going off topic, ah this is so broad..


Originally posted by Prot0n

Well, this is pre-assuming that YOUR version and concept of who god is would be the right one. This can be highly debated amongst the plethora of Christian sects.




True


Originally posted by Prot0n

Really? Care to explain more on this? Have Christians proven what exist's outside the universe that no one else on the planet can deny the evidence for? There are no fact's, just assumption's.



hmm.. the word christian has gotten to much attention in the media I guess..



Originally posted by Prot0n

We're still stuck on the pre-assumption of your version of god. This does little to show us anything.




I'd say..... uhum, what is your version..??? 6.7? I think after reading that which saint talks about, one can figure out he has at least a wide perspective of that which he is, and has great insight into things. Why not trying to learn eachother and let eachother know what one another thinks about that which he truly is, instead of labeling one another for worshipping false ones, since you are seperating.. easy said huh


Originally posted by Prot0n

If there is an afterlife as described in the Christian bible. But given that Christianity relies upon Jewish prophecies and orginates from Jewish belief's, you should really take a look at what the Jewish people back then had to say about the afterlife.




Might have similaritis or things that can be thrown together to give us a wider perspective of the whole. btw, afterlife now



Originally posted by Prot0nTechnically it hasn't been shown to work, it's only been shown to be philosophically the right thing to do.




that's more like it, philosophical!


Originally posted by Prot0n
I don't see how I overestimated myself. And watch the news, this isn't a perfect world.





As perfect as He is, just not seen this way by us, every action is perfect in its nature, but we tend to not tend to perfection.


Originally posted by Prot0n
You do realize those to verse's are in contradiction to one another ... The verse Jesus said is basically calling for an intermediary wheras the first verse says nothing of this sort. Ther first verse doesn't mention that one need to believe in Jesus.




you don't truly know or understand him?


Originally posted by saint4God
As you've quoted above. You want God near you? Call upon Him. Want to enter His presence? "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." - Romans 10:9. It isn't rocket science folks. For some reason we like to make things more complicated than they really are.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Jesus is not lord. The Messiah is not a pagan demi-god.

"God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)


In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word came into the flesh, as this flesh was His son, He spoketh.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by alienaddicted]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
In the author's own opinion's. But then again, nearly ever religous text does this same thing, explain's why their god(s) are the one true god(s).


2 Peter, you know the one that I quoted, disagrees. So do many, many other books within the Bible AND the tongues of those who know God. You don't need me to disagree with you.


Originally posted by Prot0n
You seem only interested in the 'Christian' fact's.


Let any who have facts present them, Christian or otherwise.


Originally posted by Prot0n
This is abit onesided and doesn't help anything at all.


Sorry I've failed you in that capacity. Maybe there's another here that can relate better.


Originally posted by Prot0n
It's been duly noted already that it's a collection of books by various author's.


....over thousands of years. Two parts to my statement there. Willing to acknowledge this as well? If so, I give the not to your definition as well.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Let's take this as an example. There's certain sci-fi books, the book itself has one title, but the individual stories are all authored by different people. We still refer to the book as a book in it's entirety, as a whole. If you really want to nitpick and claim that one can't refer to the Bible (that being the title of one book containing a collection of various stories authored by many different individuals), then that's your choice.


...over thousands of years. Do you see the uniqueness of this one Book yet?


Originally posted by Prot0n
If you'd bothered researching the Jewish prophecies that the Christians are reliant upon you'll come to learn that there is no virgin birth prophecied.


Isaiah 7:14 " Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Really Prot0n, you're not making this very hard.


Originally posted by Prot0n
If you read the Bible in correct order and context you'l also see Mary is not of Davidic lineage as well. Jesus fulfills nothing.


Joseph is the Davidic lineage. Heritage is passed through the male line, not the female. Please don't tell me you didn't know that.


Originally posted by Prot0n


I don't know what Luke 1:36 has to do with anything we're discussing here. Actually it's Joseph's lineage that's given in Luke 3:23.


It has a little bit to do with what I previously stated.


How? There is no lineage of Mary given nor does it matter.


Originally posted by Prot0n
If we assume the virgin birth story and given the traditional customs back in those days and given the clearly stated lineage for Mary, we see that Jesus' lineage is not of David.


Joseph. Male line, etc. Care to address any of my points or are you insistent on on restating yours.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Good point, but this is of the Christian god and pre-assume's that the Christian god is the only god. This does little as far as trying to find the one true god.


At least it does something
. So we're making progress albeit slow. You can put God last on the checklist if you like, so long as you get to that investigation before the heart stops beating...to when that is I can make no guarentees.


Originally posted by Prot0n
This can be highly debated. There are many other religions out there who claim this very same thing


Not my problem. I'm not in the business of psychology but rather reality.


Originally posted by Prot0n
and many different sects of Christianity who claim to hold truth over the other's.


I don't think there are as many "divisions" as you may think. All Biblical churches agree Christ is the son of God, died to pay the penalty for our sins, and by believing in Him we will be saved. Are there exceptions? If so, please provide.


Originally posted by Prot0n
This pre-assume's that the Christian god was the first, both scripturally and historically. This simply isn't so.


Says you. What evidence do you have to show that God was not there "In the Beginning..."? My Book says He was.


Originally posted by Prot0n
The ancient Summerian culture, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese all predate Christian faith and monthiestic belief's. Both scripturally and historically.


These do not predate the belief in God. Christianity is also known as Messainic Judiasm. What existed before Judiasm again?


Originally posted by Prot0n
Well, this is pre-assuming that YOUR version and concept of who god is would be the right one. This can be highly debated amongst the plethora of Christian sects.


It's not "my version" cross-reference among all Bible believing sects and show my how "my version" differs please.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Really? Care to explain more on this? Have Christians proven what exist's outside the universe that no one else on the planet can deny the evidence for? There are no fact's, just assumption's.


There are facts, but it is not a Christians job to prove God to you or anyone else. Only God can prove to you He exists, take it up with Him. Your fight isn't with me or any other Christian.


Originally posted by Prot0n
We're still stuck on the pre-assumption of your version of god. This does little to show us anything.


Don't take my word for it. I'm not looking for followers of me nor do I want them. Find God for yourself if you don't want any guidance. You have that right and ability just as I did.


Originally posted by Prot0n
If there is an afterlife as described in the Christian bible. But given that Christianity relies upon Jewish prophecies and orginates from Jewish belief's, you should really take a look at what the Jewish people back then had to say about the afterlife.


Already have. Where was Elijah taken up to?


Originally posted by Prot0n
Technically it hasn't been shown to work, it's only been shown to be philosophically the right thing to do.


Then test it. I can't do it for you nor would I want to.


Originally posted by Prot0n
I don't see how I overestimated myself.


I wouldn't expect you to...which is why I said it.


Originally posted by Prot0n
And watch the news, this isn't a perfect world.


Everyday and on the net. What did I say that caused you to presume I did not? What did I say that implied it was a perfect world?


Originally posted by Prot0n
You do realize those to verse's are in contradiction to one another ... The verse Jesus said is basically calling for an intermediary wheras the first verse says nothing of this sort. Ther first verse doesn't mention that one need to believe in Jesus.


Adam talked to God without believing in Jesus because at that time God and Christ were One. John illustrates this nicely as it opens the chapter:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

This is the establishment of the New Covenent (you see we broke all the ones prior to it). In this book it details where the Christ, part of God was made here on earth. Cross-reference with Hebrews 4:14 - 5:10 for a better explanation of Christ's role after his time on earth and current position.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Jesus is not lord.


Says you. Support please?


Originally posted by Prot0n
The Messiah is not a pagan demi-god.


No, he is not pagan and made that clear.


Originally posted by Prot0n
"God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).


Very good, but I think we all know this.


Originally posted by Prot0n
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)


Interesting how my quote in John, the New Testament, matches this one? Coincidence?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
alienaddicted,




As common known, there is only one true God, or migh be one that is all and therefore unjudgable or judged in unlimited ways. hahah!

might also be that different names might be given to the same, I heard somewhere before he would like to be called Allah, or YHWH, I just feel his appearance.

All the worshipping done by us must be to him, or He will never receive it, so you might get lost. Yes, and then you worship false ones, idols or I don't know, whatever you might believe what the superpower above you is, governments I hear you say? yes, listen to their words, you'll get far.. behind ah well.. who am I kidding..


Other religions would say the same thing to you. Your following a false god. This does little for either party, when both are viewing something infinitley greater then them in such a narrow point of view.



do you mean by christian, one that is teached by the book? well, the parables and text gives much insight, or better, they gives us common topics to talk about, so we get a common perspective on things, or I mean, when this book is known by everyone, one can debate any subject at hand if he would like, .... in my opinion also


The only insight obtainable from the biblical text's are moral philosophical lesson's. The very same one's taught nearly world wide by differing religions and differing culture's in varying degree's of belief's in those value's. This does little by way of evidence for it's validity.



one might see it as a bit of fantasy like, but miracles do appear by him.. ..... ever read about a russian girl crying diamants?


I've read many paranormal claim's that have been proven false heresey's. Show one religous 'miracle' that is proven to be a miracle and nothing else or could be explained by any other means. And this claim has to be scientifically well documented and accepted.



how does that react on you? what do you fulfill then?


I'm not following you on this one ... I don't claim to fulfill the Messiah's role, if that's what you mean?



You've labeled God now, to be one of christians, so you seperate, when you talk about a christian god, and a muslim god, then you are allready worshipping two false ones, it is in fact the one that is near, but there is a lot told about him, Him tried to be explained. I find this book quite fascinating and explains in a simple way our nature, and is easy to use for balancing, to get to know right from wrong, in yourself, and to understand God's nature plus that of your own, ah just showing some respect to the book, which I have.. read it and heaven will knock on your door, for thy wilt knock on it by reading..


Any personal opinionated view would be false. The issue here is, god is infinitely greater then the human mind and no human mind can grasp such infinitness in any obtainable comprehensible fashion no matter how hard one tries. The Christian bible's God is one that's widely believed in, but then again we have a variety of differing sects with differing views. None of these personal views can be more correct then the other due to the infinitness issue.



heheh, but God is that which was first, or always ah hell I can't explain. And stop labeling... christian god, the book isn't all fairytale.. some that might claim themselve christian might still be worshipping 'false' gods, or sending their worship to a wrong ideal. Better say the God of the Bible then, hu but still, there are two Gods right, the one from old and the one from the new testament? going off topic, ah this is so broad..


Seeing as how I'm discussing a Christian book that discuss's the Christian god, there's no reason not to state the obvious. It is the Christian god, although you are more then entitled to go against the mainstream religous views and redefine god yourself to suite your own purposes and your own beleifs.



hmm.. the word christian has gotten to much attention in the media I guess..


Christianity has been in the spot light for the past 2000 year's.



I'd say..... uhum, what is your version..??? 6.7? I think after reading that which saint talks about, one can figure out he has at least a wide perspective of that which he is, and has great insight into things. Why not trying to learn eachother and let eachother know what one another thinks about that which he truly is, instead of labeling one another for worshipping false ones, since you are seperating.. easy said huh


This is still working off of the author's personal opinions and views of who and what god is. You can claim to gain wisdom all you want through reading the bible and claiming 'personal experience', but any opinionated view's and definitions of god would be rendered false due to the infinitness problem. Man's mind is simply to finite to comprehend something eternally infinite and greater then man himself. Possibly this is the basis of faith, but then we're left with the issue of how to have faith in the correct concept of god when man in his finite abilities can't fully or even come close to understanding something so much greater then himself.



Might have similaritis or things that can be thrown together to give us a wider perspective of the whole. btw, afterlife now


There's no true way to gain a wider perspective. All views of the afterlife through out all societies, culture's, and personal belief's are very very different. Some may be similar to other's, but as a whole it's nearly impossible to mesh them all into one grand unified afterlife theory. That, and given that all aspect's of the afterlife were written by the living who've never lived in the eternal afterlife and so have no experience of such a place to put into writting.



As perfect as He is, just not seen this way by us, every action is perfect in its nature, but we tend to not tend to perfection.


As perfect as who is?



you don't truly know or understand him?


I know and understand on the same level as anyone else on this planet. If your going to claim to know the infinite, comprehend the infinite, and can describe the infinite, you might wanna check into getting on a few major network broadcast stations and stepping up to fulfill the role of the messiah.



In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word came into the flesh, as this flesh was His son, He spoketh.


What chapter:verse and gospel is that from?

Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

From my understanding, this would be the begining of the book. Is it not?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
alienaddicted,




As common known, there is only one true God, or migh be one that is all and therefore unjudgable or judged in unlimited ways. hahah!

might also be that different names might be given to the same, I heard somewhere before he would like to be called Allah, or YHWH, I just feel his appearance.

All the worshipping done by us must be to him, or He will never receive it, so you might get lost. Yes, and then you worship false ones, idols or I don't know, whatever you might believe what the superpower above you is, governments I hear you say? yes, listen to their words, you'll get far.. behind ah well.. who am I kidding..


Other religions would say the same thing to you. Your following a false god. This does little for either party, when both are viewing something infinitley greater then them in such a narrow point of view.

my self doesn't follow, it is or might be perceived as is guided. You have a wrong perception of self. As I might be bothered by which is now the true self..



do you mean by christian, one that is teached by the book? well, the parables and text gives much insight, or better, they gives us common topics to talk about, so we get a common perspective on things, or I mean, when this book is known by everyone, one can debate any subject at hand if he would like, .... in my opinion also


The only insight obtainable from the biblical text's are moral philosophical lesson's. The very same one's taught nearly world wide by differing religions and differing culture's in varying degree's of belief's in those value's. This does little by way of evidence for it's validity.

yes, but are all those cultures not growing their own thoughts on what His nature is, the true nature, that which he is is hard to explain, but his ways can be noticed and thereof claims can be made, but still, lots of views on it are possible, which angle do you take? Which ways of Him is your reasoning blocking? Which false judgements or even judgements did you take? hm.. He did advise us not to judge..



one might see it as a bit of fantasy like, but miracles do appear by him.. ..... ever read about a russian girl crying diamants?


I've read many paranormal claim's that have been proven false heresey's. Show one religous 'miracle' that is proven to be a miracle and nothing else or could be explained by any other means. And this claim has to be scientifically well documented and accepted.

I turned my head,.. and you nodded. You want another one?



how does that react on you? what do you fulfill then?


I'm not following you on this one ... I don't claim to fulfill the Messiah's role, if that's what you mean?

You claim Jesus did not fulfill anything, aint you fulfilling your own life, the steps you are supposed to take, or has lazyness taken over you?



You've labeled God now, to be one of christians, so you seperate, when you talk about a christian god, and a muslim god, then you are allready worshipping two false ones, it is in fact the one that is near, but there is a lot told about him, Him tried to be explained. I find this book quite fascinating and explains in a simple way our nature, and is easy to use for balancing, to get to know right from wrong, in yourself, and to understand God's nature plus that of your own, ah just showing some respect to the book, which I have.. read it and heaven will knock on your door, for thy wilt knock on it by reading..


Any personal opinionated view would be false. The issue here is, god is infinitely greater then the human mind and no human mind can grasp such infinitness in any obtainable comprehensible fashion no matter how hard one tries. The Christian bible's God is one that's widely believed in, but then again we have a variety of differing sects with differing views. None of these personal views can be more correct then the other due to the infinitness issue.

An opinion is never false, but can be incorrect. An opinion depends on the view, and the view depends on the person that saw or noticed. You are correct on this, not?



heheh, but God is that which was first, or always ah hell I can't explain. And stop labeling... christian god, the book isn't all fairytale.. some that might claim themselve christian might still be worshipping 'false' gods, or sending their worship to a wrong ideal. Better say the God of the Bible then, hu but still, there are two Gods right, the one from old and the one from the new testament? going off topic, ah this is so broad..


Seeing as how I'm discussing a Christian book that discuss's the Christian god, there's no reason not to state the obvious. It is the Christian god, although you are more then entitled to go against the mainstream religous views and redefine god yourself to suite your own purposes and your own beleifs.

God is truly that which he is, you can have as much opinions on what you have self experienced, the book can have a boost on this process. When you've attained witness of God, due to the a christian book, is your God christian then? What if you worship the God from the Book, without ever reading it, which is possible, offcourse, would you claim him worshipping a christian God, or just.. God?



hmm.. the word christian has gotten to much attention in the media I guess..


Christianity has been in the spot light for the past 2000 year's.

and widely misinterpreted too



I'd say..... uhum, what is your version..??? 6.7? I think after reading that which saint talks about, one can figure out he has at least a wide perspective of that which he is, and has great insight into things. Why not trying to learn eachother and let eachother know what one another thinks about that which he truly is, instead of labeling one another for worshipping false ones, since you are seperating.. easy said huh


This is still working off of the author's personal opinions and views of who and what god is. You can claim to gain wisdom all you want through reading the bible and claiming 'personal experience', but any opinionated view's and definitions of god would be rendered false due to the infinitness problem. Man's mind is simply to finite to comprehend something eternally infinite and greater then man himself. Possibly this is the basis of faith, but then we're left with the issue of how to have faith in the correct concept of god when man in his finite abilities can't fully or even come close to understanding something so much greater then himself.

God is in you, but the thing that perceives Him can never fully understand Him, but can notice His ways, by which you grow faith in Him, we are complex beings



Might have similaritis or things that can be thrown together to give us a wider perspective of the whole. btw, afterlife now


There's no true way to gain a wider perspective. All views of the afterlife through out all societies, culture's, and personal belief's are very very different. Some may be similar to other's, but as a whole it's nearly impossible to mesh them all into one grand unified afterlife theory. That, and given that all aspect's of the afterlife were written by the living who've never lived in the eternal afterlife and so have no experience of such a place to put into writting.

I believe we are the afterlife, or that which we are in the afterlife, in a body, or in control of a body, so we have the afterlife now. Be it, or judge it.



As perfect as He is, just not seen this way by us, every action is perfect in its nature, but we tend to not tend to perfection.


As perfect as who is?

As you are
, but not as what you think that you are, it always runs short..




you don't truly know or understand him?


I know and understand on the same level as anyone else on this planet. If your going to claim to know the infinite, comprehend the infinite, and can describe the infinite, you might wanna check into getting on a few major network broadcast stations and stepping up to fulfill the role of the messiah.

quantum physics is a good starter to get insight into the process..



In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word came into the flesh, as this flesh was His son, He spoketh.


What chapter:verse and gospel is that from?

Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

From my understanding, this would be the begining of the book. Is it not?


So God is in all things, as the spirit is or can be, as was his son, as you are.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by alienaddicted]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The Bible is the word of God just as any word is. If God created everything then it stands to reason that the Bible is part of that creation, hence, God's word. However, on this premise, all writings are God's word since God created the word.
Come on - you guys on both sides get so freaking fired up on this stuff and you're hooked like suckers every time its mentioned. Talk about letting your buttons be pushed - howmany of you have high blood pressure or heart problems? RELAX !!! The only thing thats worse than a fundamentalist is one who is equally passionately anti-fundamentalist. Get a hobby folks - building houses out of toothpicks is more productive than this.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
saint4God,




2 Peter, you know the one that I quoted, disagrees. So do many, many other books within the Bible AND the tongues of those who know God. You don't need me to disagree with you.


Peter can disagree with other religous belief's all he want's. It's his opinion over their's and both opinions can be highly debatable.



Let any who have facts present them, Christian or otherwise.


What 'facts' have you presented?



....over thousands of years. Two parts to my statement there. Willing to acknowledge this as well? If so, I give the not to your definition as well.


Of course I acknowledge the NT books were written over the course of ... Forty some odd years. Roughly two, possibly five year's after Jesus' death (or fleeing to Kashmir). Despite the many authorships, the bible itself is still refered to as a whole, as one book. This is why the various gospel's can be and are refered to as chapter's.



...over thousands of years. Do you see the uniqueness of this one Book yet?


The Egyptian book of the dead is much older. Perhaps that's more unique instead.




Isaiah 7:14 " Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Really Prot0n, you're not making this very hard.


You need to step outside of this one sided view and look at the Jewish language this 'prophecy' relies upon. The word used by the Jews was alma (do a search).



Joseph is the Davidic lineage. Heritage is passed through the male line, not the female. Please don't tell me you didn't know that.


Through direct descendence, yes. God is supposedly Jesus' father nullifying any davidic lineage.



How? There is no lineage of Mary given nor does it matter.


Please tell me you've read Isaiah and fully understood it?

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."(Luke 1:36)



Joseph. Male line, etc. Care to address any of my points or are you insistent on on restating yours.


You haven't made any valid point's to address. You fail to comprehend the customs of the time's. You also fail to draw a distinct line of how god's fathership of Jesus result's in a direct descendence of the Davidic lineage.




At least it does something . So we're making progress albeit slow. You can put God last on the checklist if you like, so long as you get to that investigation before the heart stops beating...to when that is I can make no guarentees.


You took the phrase "this does little" out of context and interjected a new meaning in such a way to make this quoted statement. Naughty naughty.



Not my problem. I'm not in the business of psychology but rather reality.


Yet you hold onto the realm of phsychology for your faith. This is all nothing more then philosophical arguments, none of it founded in reality.



Says you. What evidence do you have to show that God was not there "In the Beginning..."? My Book says He was.


A book written by a man who assume's that a god was there and has no direct evidence to show us in his book that there was a god there. Older religion's in history make this same claim, their god(s) were what started the creation process. Although the view's of how that process went are entirely different.




These do not predate the belief in God. Christianity is also known as Messainic Judiasm. What existed before Judiasm again?


Of the Judaism religion, they do indeed predate it. Pick up a history/archeology book. Learn. The Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations predate Judaism.



It's not "my version" cross-reference among all Bible believing sects and show my how "my version" differs please.


Without a full definitions of your version and concept of god, I can quiet exactly point out difference's, can I? Let's not impart impossible task's on one another.



There are facts, but it is not a Christians job to prove God to you or anyone else. Only God can prove to you He exists, take it up with Him. Your fight isn't with me or any other Christian.


There are opinion's, not fact's.



Don't take my word for it. I'm not looking for followers of me nor do I want them. Find God for yourself if you don't want any guidance. You have that right and ability just as I did.


I'm not saying you are or not. Where would you get such an idea?




Adam talked to God without believing in Jesus because at that time God and Christ were One. John illustrates this nicely as it opens the chapter:


Why does John feel the need to rewrite Genesis? There is no such statement made in Genesis, nor anything that would imply something like this. John's gospel being a Chrsitian invention.




Interesting how my quote in John, the New Testament, matches this one? Coincidence?


If you want to take thing's out of context, as you appear to enjoy doing.

"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)

The Lord is ONE, this statement doesn't match up at all with Jesus and god being one.

Sorry took so long to reply... Had thing's to attend to.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   


my self doesn't follow, it is or might be perceived as is guided. You have a wrong perception of self. As I might be bothered by which is now the true self..


Could you clarify this and explain how it ties into the quoted statement? I'm not following what your getting at.



yes, but are all those cultures not growing their own thoughts on what His nature is, the true nature, that which he is is hard to explain, but his ways can be noticed and thereof claims can be made, but still, lots of views on it are possible, which angle do you take? Which ways of Him is your reasoning blocking? Which false judgements or even judgements did you take? hm.. He did advise us not to judge..


This is pre-assuming your god is the only god and there were never other gods. Other older culture's would disagree with you here.




I turned my head,.. and you nodded. You want another one?


This doesn't make any sense.




You claim Jesus did not fulfill anything, aint you fulfilling your own life, the steps you are supposed to take, or has lazyness taken over you?


Is it Christian custom to take thing's out of context and apply new meaning's to them? It's quiet obvious I'm talking about him not fulfilling the Jewish prophecies.




An opinion is never false, but can be incorrect. An opinion depends on the view, and the view depends on the person that saw or noticed. You are correct on this, not?


Philosophy is not on your side my friend. An incorrect view/statement would be false. If an opinion is incorrect, it is false by nature. I need not matter what the opinionated view's of the individual are, false is false.




God is truly that which he is, you can have as much opinions on what you have self experienced, the book can have a boost on this process. When you've attained witness of God, due to the a christian book, is your God christian then? What if you worship the God from the Book, without ever reading it, which is possible, offcourse, would you claim him worshipping a christian God, or just.. God?


This does nothing but to show that there are many different concepts of god and that many different concepts can be held. Only one would be correct however, if there truelly is only one god.




and widely misinterpreted too


You explain the witch trials and crusade's then.




God is in you, but the thing that perceives Him can never fully understand Him, but can notice His ways, by which you grow faith in Him, we are complex beings


God is in you only through faith alone. You hold faith that your god exist's and you make god have human emotions and actions, for you are human. Your experience is through human terms alone. But how can we label a supreme infinite being beyond mere human comprehension as having human emotions and drives?




I believe we are the afterlife, or that which we are in the afterlife, in a body, or in control of a body, so we have the afterlife now. Be it, or judge it.


This is the first time I've heard this view of the afterlife... care to explain why you hold this view?




As you are , but not as what you think that you are, it always runs short..


If god is as perfect as I am, then he is far from infinite perfection.




quantum physics is a good starter to get insight into the process..


Quantum physics deals mainly within our own universe, but can be used to come up with a variety of theories for how the universe came to be through natural means. In the end however, without directly viewing the pre big bang universe, we can never prove what was before our universe. Nor does this have any meaning to the quoted statement.



So God is in all things, as the spirit is or can be, as was his son, as you are.


We're still pre-assuming that god exist's and is the one true god despite older gods worshiped by older civilizations.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
hey religious guys: somethign I never understood from bible school...where did cain's wife come from if he didn't pick her up from inside the garden? just wondering:shk:



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
look proton, we can build up a nice conversation for us and for others to read. But there are two sides on this, with many opinions. Sometimes we hit the spot sometimes we don't. My right side brain starts to itch in these discussions, may claim due this I can't even talk well about the subject.

I don't know that what God is, but lately, I do realize I have a quite clear perception in my mind of it. How energys operate. I have done reiki I two years ago, and the process of opening up to energies and acting on them is a trial, an eye-opener.

We are all in a shell, and the ones that come out are shocked on who we truly are, seeing much do not attend to follow. This can be really disturbing sometimes. But we do not have to blame others for we do made the same mistakes, it's all on a path to ascention like the mainstream says, hah just got some insight on this. me myself was kinda lost, no more path, just lazy and useless to this society!! My Ego to big to even care. Just shootin' all heads off and blaming me as blaming them. I don't know how it happened. It just seemed to be. Something drove me this far. And now I'm coming back! To speak the words on my mind, to set me free but loyal to humanity! I judged too much wrong, in my opinion all opinions are just useless, #, veils of illusions, count them if you will, astonished! I have to break the codes. See what I didn't see. Cause of my blackness. Troublesome heart, dillusional mind. But what the F I grow up.. as I dream further. Escaping the face of reality. I'm a bit agressive to cause of the things I found and searched further on in the period I allready have lived for. Much asskick to do, and when I ever see the things that gives me thrills, I break 'm down. No dumbass in my territory. When my head gets fired just move out of the way. I #ing break the thing. I know what I have and refuse to live in. Government just gives me the headaches. As long As I do my duty no trouble. Otherwise this place a disgrace. One day I'll by a truck and tear all the cellphonetowers down HH. Proven bad for mankind so tear 'm down. I said before, it's a disturbing micro-wave oven. Just get mad by the thought of it. Government don't care about. Is this how we will run a system? It's yodidelliedokelie tearing us down, you know. Birds start singing as I write this! I leave. Just had to let it go off my chest, and seems to be here. greetings..



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   


I don't know that what God is, but lately, I do realize I have a quite clear perception in my mind of it. How energys operate. I have done reiki I two years ago, and the process of opening up to energies and acting on them is a trial, an eye-opener.


Reiki is a japanese spiritual healing technique. Mikao Usui (1865-1926) claim's to have "rediscovered" Reiki. Reiki relies upon the 'aura', a sublte energy field around living matter. An energy feild that does not exist. Reiki is also not accepted as it doesn't heal beyond that expected from the placebo effect.



Just had to let it go off my chest, and seems to be here. greetings..


I'm not sure how to interpret that paragraph nor understand what it was supposed to mean or how it applies to what we were previously discussing?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker_1
Talk about letting your buttons be pushed - howmany of you have high blood pressure or heart problems? RELAX !!!


I am relaxed. No elevated blood pressure or heart problems here. Apologies if I caused any unhealthy reactions of others. It certainly was not my intention.

To your other statement, there is nothing more important to talk about.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n



I don't know that what God is, but lately, I do realize I have a quite clear perception in my mind of it. How energys operate. I have done reiki I two years ago, and the process of opening up to energies and acting on them is a trial, an eye-opener.


Reiki is a japanese spiritual healing technique. Mikao Usui (1865-1926) claim's to have "rediscovered" Reiki. Reiki relies upon the 'aura', a sublte energy field around living matter. An energy feild that does not exist. Reiki is also not accepted as it doesn't heal beyond that expected from the placebo effect.

you are good in interpreting that which you have studied, but reiki is just a name for the energies that are. No one truly needed to invent a name on that, but God would suit perfectly. What is it else I could ask you? You seem to can talk about it widely, but do you also have the right interpretion or perspective?.. on everything then I mean, cause you can hit points..



Just had to let it go off my chest, and seems to be here. greetings..


I'm not sure how to interpret that paragraph nor understand what it was supposed to mean or how it applies to what we were previously discussing?


offcourse, but it was a stream of thoughts I needed to express. It comes up and clears my heart and mind, but I get judged by doing this and am set straight on the path. You are thanked for your reaction, it always drives me further to express what is left behind in me, or better, that which lies beneath my surface. Everytime I am guided to past experiences that may have cause this, so to erase or maybe heal bad experiences which causes me to do wrong anctions or speak falsely. I do have to learn. Sometimes it just goes straight to our heads, so we might just shot into the clouds. Lossin' reality a bit. From everybody there is to learn, in everybody insight can be found, in fact the most righteouss way to learn is by watching others actions with yours.. or someting, who am I kidding? Thank you.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Peter can disagree with other religous belief's all he want's. It's his opinion over their's and both opinions can be highly debatable.


The assumption here is that it is Peter's opinion. Did you hear what he said? And it's not just him.


Originally posted by Prot0n
What 'facts' have you presented?


Plenty. How many have I proven? One (which you argue but another agrees is acceptable). Again, not my job to prove facts.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Of course I acknowledge the NT books were written over the course of ... Forty some odd years. Roughly two, possibly five year's after Jesus' death (or fleeing to Kashmir). Despite the many authorships, the bible itself is still refered to as a whole, as one book. This is why the various gospel's can be and are refered to as chapter's.


Aight, I'll take it.


Originally posted by Prot0n
The Egyptian book of the dead is much older. Perhaps that's more unique instead.


Older than God? Older than the oral tradition of Adam and Eve? Really...


Originally posted by Prot0n
You need to step outside of this one sided view and look at the Jewish language this 'prophecy' relies upon. The word used by the Jews was alma (do a search).


This isn't really a compelling statement against what I've said. You said there was no prophesy about a virgin birth. I showed you there was. Now you want to play a game with semantics again? Let the jury decide.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Through direct descendence, yes. God is supposedly Jesus' father nullifying any davidic lineage.


Aha! Thanks for getting off the "Mary" boat. Also, thanks for acknowledging that Jesus was supposedly the son of God (even this is slight progress from denying). Even though Christ was not from Joseph's biology, by heritage, he was Joseph heir, was he not? It was thought by many in that day that he was in fact son of Joseph, who was a decendant of David, yes? So, if he is not the Son of God, then he's the bio child of the Davidic lineage. If he's not, then he's the Son of God. Which is he to you?


Originally posted by Prot0n
Please tell me you've read Isaiah and fully understood it?


I can always learn more my friend.


Originally posted by Prot0n
"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."(Luke 1:36)


And? I'm still missing your point here.


Originally posted by Prot0n
You haven't made any valid point's to address.


Hehe, whatever dude.



Originally posted by Prot0n
You fail to comprehend the customs of the time's.


I see. And you were there so you can tell me all about it, right?


Originally posted by Prot0n
You also fail to draw a distinct line of how god's fathership of Jesus result's in a direct descendence of the Davidic lineage.


See my question regarding Davidic vs. Son of God.


Originally posted by Prot0n
You took the phrase "this does little" out of context and interjected a new meaning in such a way to make this quoted statement. Naughty naughty.


To say "this does little" is also to say something was done. The glass is half empty, the glass is half full. Apologizes for being positively aligned.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Yet you hold onto the realm of phsychology for your faith. This is all nothing more then philosophical arguments, none of it founded in reality.


From your paradigm it may seem that way.


Originally posted by Prot0n
A book written by a man who assume's that a god was there and has no direct evidence to show us in his book that there was a god there. Older religion's in history make this same claim, their god(s) were what started the creation process. Although the view's of how that process went are entirely different.


The it would be acceptable to say some other religions claim that their god is as old as God, but not older, yes?


Originally posted by Prot0n
Of the Judaism religion, they do indeed predate it. Pick up a history/archeology book. Learn. The Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations predate Judaism.


Stop assuming I have no historical background nor interest. It is an incorrect assumption. This is why I say "you overestimate yourself". Shave the ego and let's talk.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Without a full definitions of your version and concept of god, I can quiet exactly point out difference's, can I?


No problem, if you cannot identify the differences, then maybe there aren't any. Just a possibility.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Let's not impart impossible task's on one another.


Then don't make claims and statistics without being able to back them up.


Originally posted by Prot0n
There are opinion's, not fact's.


No they're not.
Can we grow up or shall we persist in childishness?


Originally posted by Prot0n
I'm not saying you are or not. Where would you get such an idea?


Just painting the picture, but sometimes you have to step back to see what the shapes form.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Why does John feel the need to rewrite Genesis? There is no such statement made in Genesis, nor anything that would imply something like this. John's gospel being a Chrsitian invention.


Compare the two. It is a mystery resolved. Who is the "we" in Genesis when God says that "we" should make man in "our" likeness?


Originally posted by Prot0n
If you want to take thing's out of context, as you appear to enjoy doing.

"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4)

The Lord is ONE, this statement doesn't match up at all with Jesus and god being one.

Sorry took so long to reply... Had thing's to attend to.


Let me ask another question then. The Samaritan woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes he will explain everything to us".

What religion is the Samaritan woman? Where did she get this information about a Messiah?

Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

Speaking of Judiasm, in Orthodox Judiasm (which does not accept Christ as the Messiah) do they or do they not expect a Messiah? If yes, then where are they getting this expectation from?

By reading the book of John, it gives perhaps the best explaination of how "I and my father are one". There are many, many verses that explain how this is much better than I could in my own words. Quoting them all would be much to the annoyance of those present here.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyBoots
hey religious guys: somethign I never understood from bible school...where did cain's wife come from if he didn't pick her up from inside the garden? just wondering:shk:


It's a good question. The Garden of Eden was not the only place in existence at the time as I understand it. The Garden was the project area. Here's how I came to that conclusion:

"So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (Genesis 4:16)

This is very significant as it tells us a few things. It is possible to have a land named something with no-one living there? If so, who named it? It wasn't Adam, he was in the Garden. Here's a good follow-up right after he got married:

"Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch" (Genesis 4:17b)

Building a city for one son? That doesn't make much sense. Also, he was building a city all by himself while his wife was pregnant? Indeed it only makes sense if there were other lands and cities in the world. God's presence however, as it says was in Eden.

Hope this helps.



[edit on 23-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   


The assumption here is that it is Peter's opinion. Did you hear what he said? And it's not just him.


It's still just opinion. The Christian god has not been proven to exist anymore then the Egyptian god Horus or Osiris.



Plenty. How many have I proven? One (which you argue but another agrees is acceptable). Again, not my job to prove facts.


You've not displayed any fact's, just personal opinion's and pre-assumption's.



Older than God? Older than the oral tradition of Adam and Eve? Really...


This pre-assume's your concept of god is the one true god, but again this can be highly debated. Crack open a history book. Take the time to learn about what civilizations came first, what their belief's were. Intellectual laziness is not a way of gaining wisdom.



This isn't really a compelling statement against what I've said. You said there was no prophesy about a virgin birth. I showed you there was. Now you want to play a game with semantics again? Let the jury decide.


I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you admitting to not bothering looking up the hebrew words for young woman and virgin? Would you like me to do this for you so we don't have to trouble ourselve's with learning?



Aha! Thanks for getting off the "Mary" boat. Also, thanks for acknowledging that Jesus was supposedly the son of God (even this is slight progress from denying). Even though Christ was not from Joseph's biology, by heritage, he was Joseph heir, was he not? It was thought by many in that day that he was in fact son of Joseph, who was a decendant of David, yes? So, if he is not the Son of God, then he's the bio child of the Davidic lineage. If he's not, then he's the Son of God. Which is he to you?


How you do love taking thing's out of context and how little you know your own faith.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Joseph knew the child wasn't his. He hid her away not wanting to make a public example. She would have been stoned to death, for he knew it was not his child. It was only through a dream that he came to realize that Jesus was supposedly god's son. But this only happens through the misusage of the word almah, which if your still unwilling to look up, I'll post it for the tenth time for you. The text directly jumps from Joseph not knowing initially and then on to everyone wanting to see the child after he was born. There is no time in between, nothing written to describe how other's came to know who Jesus was.



I see. And you were there so you can tell me all about it, right?


It's called learning.



See my question regarding Davidic vs. Son of God.


Lineage was through direct descent of the biological father. If god were to be the father of Jesus, then Jesus is not through direct descent of the Davidic lineage.



To say "this does little" is also to say something was done. The glass is half empty, the glass is half full. Apologizes for being positively aligned.


Your still taking it out of context to apply your own meaning to what was stated.



The it would be acceptable to say some other religions claim that their god is as old as God, but not older, yes?


Would not be acceptable because now we're completly disregarding history and claiming all these different gods were worshipped and written about at the same time which isn't the case.



Stop assuming I have no historical background nor interest. It is an incorrect assumption. This is why I say "you overestimate yourself". Shave the ego and let's talk.


If you've really bothered to look into it, then your doing nothing more then disregarding history.



Compare the two. It is a mystery resolved. Who is the "we" in Genesis when God says that "we" should make man in "our" likeness?


There is a second creation story followed right after that. One which make's no refrence to 'we'. Which one is right?




By reading the book of John, it gives perhaps the best explaination of how "I and my father are one". There are many, many verses that explain how this is much better than I could in my own words. Quoting them all would be much to the annoyance of those present here.


Numbers 23:19





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join