The Fact is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah

page: 19
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Then that fear came in. God must be real. My world is rocked. What do I do? I must hide behind the "my truth" lie.


What makes you think mytym fears the existence of God.
Hasn't he stated previously that He has no problem with the existence of God?


He went into panic mode and started creating all kinds of wierd threads. It's like he snapped, his world was rocked. Here is the title of one of his threads.


Fear and ignorance...Our oppressive allies


Now the wheels have come off and he just repeats himself, not being able to respond to the questions at hand. He has entered stage three of denial and the fear seems to have completely disoriented him.




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Sun Matrix, thanks for the laughs.

I'm just glad I can sit back and laugh without getting frustrated by arguing with you. It truly tickles me that people can rip off an earlier religion and say the original is wrong and they are right.




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Sun Matrix, thanks for the laughs.

I'm just glad I can sit back and laugh without getting frustrated by arguing with you. It truly tickles me that people can rip off an earlier religion and say the original is wrong and they are right.



Well, let's get specific. What exactly are you referring to. Let's get to the facts.

I kind of get a laugh out of your name, by the way. I think you should change it to Truthrejecta, lol.

Any, go ahead, lay out some specifics.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Sun Matrix,
From page 16
Mytym has stated he does not fear the existence of God in the quote below.


Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
It's not that I fear God is real, it's that I fear he may not be that is the real worry. This may not seem like a significant statement to the layperson, but to those of faith, the significance should be quite evident.

Excuse me, while I complete another victory lap.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
so can you prove that it is so true that you give your self to a so called messiah who may not be as imortal as you think the so called bible was writen long after his death by the priests from the time who freed a killer so he would die it was not judas who betraed
him it was his own people this is oh and the bible was writen at the meeting in nicea whick was prsided over by the roman emperor constine who was losing control of his own empire amongst the turmole left by the let say murder of a man who was a king in his own right he came from kings right was it david he desened from i think so i am not a beliver that one force created life science as already proven this because without religon i think the world would be in total meltdown as long as man has had an imagination we have created things that are totaly beyond are own understanding which is why humans in general have created this so called euporea over something that is in are own mind coz its been there from the start so morale of the story is don't judge a book by its cover i read it and that mayed me put it down and not look at it .



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   


oh and the bible was writen at the meeting in nicea whick was prsided over by the roman emperor constine


Sorry but your facts are incorrect. You must have gotten this from the Da Vinci Crock.

Take 5 minutes and find out what really took place at the Council of Nicea. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

A simple web seach should reveal the truth.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
An Antiquity ??

" When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed? "
from the book Human, all too Human



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It is interesting IAF101 - I have a cousin that thinks that way - it seems as if this is the way that "Modern Society" wants us to think! It reminds me of that quote = "The Church is the main cause of Atheism in the Word" - which is probably true. I guess that the author of that quote would consider Secular, Consumerist driven, Materialistic Society as the so-called "Superior Alternative".

When are people going to realize that Science & Spirituality are not necessarily Incompatible? That both are Beneficial in a persons Life - that both offer Value to Society & is needed by Society!



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Another thing I dont understand is that why is the cross, a symbol of death, taken as a symbol for the faith ? What would have happened if Christ was nailed on a circle or a just staked on a big pole in the ground ? Would these become our symbols ? They say it was Christ's sacrifice okay I get that then why not take some other form of his sacrifice ? Because to claim the cross would also mean the thousands upon thousands of other including criminals, slaves etc who were also crucified as people of his order. The symbol just seems to be against what he taught, compassion, love etc. Also I would think that his teaching reflect more on the value of life than death and thus the cross is not a good example.
Also these days, in the christian faith with the advent of these evangelists and others, its become into some pagan worship with all these claims of miracles etc and people actually worshipping the planks of wood at the altar rather than what they are supposed to.




i think that wearing a cross around your neck to remember christs death is kinda wrong. he doesnt want to see people wearing that. that would be like wearing a sniper rifle around your neck to remember jfk's death. just aint right.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
Sun Matrix:
The very existence of different versions of the Bible is proof that it is ambiguous, thus requires opinions to interpret. As I have already explained several times, opinions and facts are not compatible. The only choice is to believe the interpretation, not the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.


seeing how 7 is the most high's number how could have this slipped into the book of matthew?



suppose you are asked to construct a genealogy of real people, but there are certain constraints. the number of words in this genealogy must:

beenly divisible by seven (with no remainders)
the number of letters must be divisible by seven
the number of vowels and consonants must be divisible by seven
the number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by seven
the number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by seven
the number of words that occur more than once, must be divisible by seven
the number of words that occur in more than one form must be divisible by seven
the number of words that occur only in one form must be divisible by seven
the number of names in the genealogy must be divisible by seven
the number of male names must be divisible by seven
and the number of generations in the genealogy must be divisible by seven
would it not be next to impossible to draw up such a genealogy? yet this describes exactly the genealogy of the messiah as given in the gospel of matthew 1 :2-17.




and also
just something in the OT that i dont think man could have in their dreams intended.....written by man yeah but inspired by something out of this world no doubt.





a hidden code encrypted in the hebrew lettering of the pentateuch, which is the name for the first five books of the old testament.

these are written originally in hebrew. if you take the first hebrew letter in genesis, skip 49 and take the next letter, and repeat the skip sequence, then every four letters spells torh (the Hebrew word pronounced 'torah', meaning 'the law of god').

this holds all the way through the first two books of the bible, genesis and exodus. when you get to the middle book of the five, leviticus, it stops. however, when you do the same skip sequence for deuteronomy and the book of numbers, it spells hrot, which is torh backwards.

go back now to the middle book of the five, leviticus, use the skip sequence again this time skipping every SEVEN letters, and it spells YHWH (pronounced YAWEH). which is the hebrew name for god!

so we have every 49 letters in genesis and exodus spelling 'the law of god' and pointing to leviticus, and every 49 letters of deuteronomy and numbers spelling 'the law of god' backwards and pointing to leviticus. every seven letters in this book spells YAWH; god himself.

Genesis Leviticus Deuterony
Torh->Torh->Torh-> YAWH



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Sun Matrix - don't forget that they went after JEWS as well during the Inquisition! What a bunch of Control Freaks - thats the RCC for ya!

P.S. Also the Vatican was Silent during Nazi Germany's Holocaust of the Jews in WWII!


[edit on 1-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



notice that the rcc is all about sun worship....as was the nazis...the swastika is the symbol of the sun....coincidence?? dont think so







sorry if im a little late on these posts and replys....been reading this whole thread tonight...gotten about half way thru it


have to put my 2 cents in.....



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The Muslim people have been fed a crock and as such attack Christians and Jews, certainly not the will of God.


Prove it. Show us your sources in Islam that claims this.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The Muslim people have been fed a crock and as such attack Christians and Jews, certainly not the will of God.


Prove it. Show us your sources in Islam that claims this.


No, you prove it so you will learn something.

Check into the history of Allah. You will find Allah is the false moon god.

People were traveling and praying to Mecca long before Mohammed was born.

The info is there if you want the truth.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
No, you prove it so you will learn something.

Check into the history of Allah. You will find Allah is the false moon god.

People were traveling and praying to Mecca long before Mohammed was born.

The info is there if you want the truth.


There is no Surrah in the Quran that validates terrorism. I have already replied to the Surrahs dealing with war in another thread, which proves Islam is a peaceful religion.

I'm well aware of the pagan worship in Mecca, before Islam. I already explained that it was these people who tried assassinating Muhammad, in the other thread as well.

You're going off topic here, by asking me to "look up the history of Allah." Your first fallacy is that you assume I don't know anything about my own faith. Your second fallacy is that you don't even know the history of it, by claiming "Moon God." If you look into the history of it, you will see that it has been in use far longer than the King who instituted it in Tayma to his diety. The word "Allah," is not a name, but rather an attribute to God. In Arabic, "AL" means "the" and "Lah" means God. It has been used for many years prior to Islam, by Semitic speaking people, including Jews and Christians. In Judaism it's pronounced "Elloh," which is also "EL" meaning "The" and "Loh" meaning God. In Aramaic, God is written as "Elaha," "EL" meaning once again as "the" and "Aha" meaning "God." Naturally, the phrase used in Arabic to denote a singular God is Al-Lah (The God).

I would suggest to you to actually research what you say, before you post it, and stop spreading ignorance. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a site that promotes knowledge, and to "deny ignorance," not the opposite. If you want to copy some information you find on an anti-Islamic site, I would suggest you question their credibility first, and then research into their claims. Salaam. - Masseeh


Take 5 minutes and find out what really took place at the Council of Nicea. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

A simple web seach should reveal the truth.


In defense of the other poster, I will reply for them. I would suggest you look into the "Nicene Creed" and the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." You will see that there had been more than one council of Nicea, and within each of this councils, they adopted a Trinitarian belief as the main doctrine of Christianity. Articles such as the 'Filioque clause' were added to the creed to unify all of Christianity as Trinitarians. If you want to read more on edits to the Bible teachings to support the Trinitarian belief, I would recomend you research the "John's Comma" also known as "Comma Johanneum."

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah


Take 5 minutes and find out what really took place at the Council of Nicea. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

A simple web seach should reveal the truth.


In defense of the other poster, I will reply for them. I would suggest you look into the "Nicene Creed" and the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." You will see that there had been more than one council of Nicea, and within each of this councils, they adopted a Trinitarian belief as the main doctrine of Christianity. Articles such as the 'Filioque clause' were added to the creed to unify all of Christianity as Trinitarians. If you want to read more on edits to the Bible teachings to support the Trinitarian belief, I would recomend you research the "John's Comma" also known as "Comma Johanneum."

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DJMessiah]


And what will I find if I follow your suggestion? Will I find that I was wrong about Constantine being responsible for chosing the books of the Bible. No Constantine had nothing to do with choosing the books of the Bible.

You defense of the other poster is left wanting.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by DJMessiah


Take 5 minutes and find out what really took place at the Council of Nicea. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

A simple web seach should reveal the truth.


In defense of the other poster, I will reply for them. I would suggest you look into the "Nicene Creed" and the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." You will see that there had been more than one council of Nicea, and within each of this councils, they adopted a Trinitarian belief as the main doctrine of Christianity. Articles such as the 'Filioque clause' were added to the creed to unify all of Christianity as Trinitarians. If you want to read more on edits to the Bible teachings to support the Trinitarian belief, I would recomend you research the "John's Comma" also known as "Comma Johanneum."

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DJMessiah]


And what will I find if I follow your suggestion? Will I find that I was wrong about Constantine being responsible for chosing the books of the Bible. No Constantine had nothing to do with choosing the books of the Bible.

You defense of the other poster is left wanting.


Exactly where in my previous reply did I mention Constantine? Once again, you're spreading ignorance and losing credibility.

If you look at the suggestions, you will see the the Nicean Council DID infact change the interpretations of the Bible, and John's Comma DID infact change the Bible's text.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by DJMessiah


Take 5 minutes and find out what really took place at the Council of Nicea. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

A simple web seach should reveal the truth.


In defense of the other poster, I will reply for them. I would suggest you look into the "Nicene Creed" and the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." You will see that there had been more than one council of Nicea, and within each of this councils, they adopted a Trinitarian belief as the main doctrine of Christianity. Articles such as the 'Filioque clause' were added to the creed to unify all of Christianity as Trinitarians. If you want to read more on edits to the Bible teachings to support the Trinitarian belief, I would recomend you research the "John's Comma" also known as "Comma Johanneum."

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DJMessiah]


And what will I find if I follow your suggestion? Will I find that I was wrong about Constantine being responsible for chosing the books of the Bible. No Constantine had nothing to do with choosing the books of the Bible.

You defense of the other poster is left wanting.


Exactly where in my previous reply did I mention Constantine? Once again, you're spreading ignorance and losing credibility.

If you look at the suggestions, you will see the the Nicean Council DID infact change the interpretations of the Bible, and John's Comma DID infact change the Bible's text.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by DJMessiah]


Sorry bub, the Catholic Bible is not the same as the true Bible. The Catholics rarely use their Bible. The books of the Bible were chosen long before 325 AD.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Sorry bub, the Catholic Bible is not the same as the true Bible. The Catholics rarely use their Bible. The books of the Bible were chosen long before 325 AD. There is a complete text dating to 125 AD.



Where is this 'complete text'????? links please

A complete text of FRAGMENTS - Dont think so




G



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Sorry bub, the Catholic Bible is not the same as the true Bible. The Catholics rarely use their Bible. The books of the Bible were chosen long before 325 AD.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Sun Matrix]


Care to show us some sources that prove everything you just said?

I've seen people reply to your topics with actual evidence, but when it comes to your replies, it seems to be either personal opinions or you ask for others to prove what you said, considering they were the ones giving evidence proving the contrary.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Care to show us some sources that prove everything you just said?

I've seen people reply to your topics with actual evidence, but when it comes to your replies, it seems to be either personal opinions or you ask for others to prove what you said, considering they were the ones giving evidence proving the contrary.


I took the time to look up your information so I would possibly learn something. Your info was left wanting as I said.



In defense of the other poster, I will reply for them. I would suggest you look into the "Nicene Creed" and the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed."


So get online and look at a Bible and compare it to a Catholic Bible and you will find they are different. If you're not interested in the truth, then don't. It' pretty simple.





new topics




 
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join