You show me where in the bible it says Jesus is NOT God and I will start a thread with the sole purpose to admit I'm wrong and publicly kiss your ass.
Last edited:
What would YOU want to hear at church?
- Thread starter adopted
- Start date
You show me where in the bible it says Jesus is NOT God and I will start a thread with the sole purpose to admit I'm wrong and publicly kiss your ass.
Yes, but he also demands love and worship himself, and that we fear him. I direct your attention to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verses 2, 5, 13, and 24, for starters.. The analogy of my fatherhood to a deity's doesn't work, as I pointed out before I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent, nor do I make the demands of my children he does. We are not remotely alike.
Of which, to the best of my knowledge, there are exactly zero. Even the one that you claim IS, shows himself not to be, right up front. He's depicted as surprised and annoyed when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the magic tree he'd told them not to touch, and he doesn't even know where they are in the Garden, he has to go looking for them.
Well, you don't show any evidence of understanding it. Was your degree a "social pass" or from a Christian madrassa?
We have two gods, Lucifer the magnificent Lightbringer and the other one who went balistic because the wise serpent suggested we smarten up and get reasonable by eating knowledge(exercise reason), if not for him we would still be animals. Guess which one we got stuck with and guess who arranged it for exactly the reign of terror the RC church supplied for the last seventeen centuries.
The duality of human nature mirrors that of God, as above so below. The jealous baby killing narsisistic tyrant or the light bringer who extols the virtue of reason and knowledge. Who loves you?
The duality of human nature mirrors that of God, as above so below. The jealous baby killing narsisistic tyrant or the light bringer who extols the virtue of reason and knowledge. Who loves you?
You take a book that is unprovable, a misconception, misinterpretation and a misrepresentation of the original texts that were never meant to be taken literally and you want someone to prove something by it.You are just being nutty. The King James version is nthing like the original texts, has omitted many books for political expediency, been mistranslated and then taken literally by people who have no idea what it is they are reading. Learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and then go back to the original texts and then come back and tell us that they said Jesus was God. Then you might have some credibility.
"The story of the Annunciation, the miraculous conception (or incarnation), the birth and the adoration of the Messianic infant had already been engraved in stone and represented in four consecutive scenes upon the innermost walls of the holy of holies (the Meskhen) in the temple of
Luxor, which was built by Amen-Hotep III about 1700 B.C., or some seventeen centuries before the events depicted are commonly supposed to have taken place."
And some day not too far distant the fateful character of Massey's concluding paragraph of his stupendous work, Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World, will be recognized as not the ranting of an overwrought scholar, but the oracular pronouncement of sober and sobering truth:
"From this we learn by means of comparative process that the literalizers of the legend and carnalizers of the Egypto-Gnostic Christ have but gathered up the empty husks of Pagan tradition, minus the kernel of the Gnosis; so that when we have taken away all which pertains to Horus, the Egypto-Gnostic Jesus, all that remains to base a Judean history upon is nothing more than the accretion of blindly ignorant belief; and that of all the Gospels and collections of 'Sayings' derived from the Ritual of the resurrection in the names of Mati or Matthew, Aan or John, Thomas or Tum, Hermes, Iu-em-hetep or Jesus, those that were canonized at last as Christian, are the most exoteric, and therefore the farthest away from the underlying, hidden, buried, but imperishable truth."
How one item of the dramatic ritual was converted into "history" can be plainly seen when the name and role of the Gospel Herod is scrutinized:
"The name of Herod in Syriac denotes a red dragon; and the red dragon in Revelation, which stands ready to devour the young child that is about to be born, is the mythical form of the Herod who has been made historical in our Gospels."
To strengthen this inference, already well grounded on comparative religion studies, is the additional fact that the same red dragon, or evil serpent of the lower nature in man, is in the Egyptian myths the monster Apap (Apep, Apepi) whose other name is found to be the Herut reptile! When also the name for the "dense sea" (of matter) under which the Christ aeon was said to suffer in its incarnation is seen appearing in old creedal formulae as the Greek pontos piletos, and we have thus the entirely non-historical origins of "Pontius Pilate" along with "Herod" in the Gospel framework, there is a clear challenge to the upholders of the historicity of the Gospels to explain how these two names, the one threatening the Christos in its infancy, the other carrying him to his death, have found their way into the story in precisely the same place, role and character as the two non-historical elements of the names!
AB Kuhn Shadow of the third century
309
And some day not too far distant the fateful character of Massey's concluding paragraph of his stupendous work, Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World, will be recognized as not the ranting of an overwrought scholar, but the oracular pronouncement of sober and sobering truth:
"From this we learn by means of comparative process that the literalizers of the legend and carnalizers of the Egypto-Gnostic Christ have but gathered up the empty husks of Pagan tradition, minus the kernel of the Gnosis; so that when we have taken away all which pertains to Horus, the Egypto-Gnostic Jesus, all that remains to base a Judean history upon is nothing more than the accretion of blindly ignorant belief; and that of all the Gospels and collections of 'Sayings' derived from the Ritual of the resurrection in the names of Mati or Matthew, Aan or John, Thomas or Tum, Hermes, Iu-em-hetep or Jesus, those that were canonized at last as Christian, are the most exoteric, and therefore the farthest away from the underlying, hidden, buried, but imperishable truth."
How one item of the dramatic ritual was converted into "history" can be plainly seen when the name and role of the Gospel Herod is scrutinized:
"The name of Herod in Syriac denotes a red dragon; and the red dragon in Revelation, which stands ready to devour the young child that is about to be born, is the mythical form of the Herod who has been made historical in our Gospels."
To strengthen this inference, already well grounded on comparative religion studies, is the additional fact that the same red dragon, or evil serpent of the lower nature in man, is in the Egyptian myths the monster Apap (Apep, Apepi) whose other name is found to be the Herut reptile! When also the name for the "dense sea" (of matter) under which the Christ aeon was said to suffer in its incarnation is seen appearing in old creedal formulae as the Greek pontos piletos, and we have thus the entirely non-historical origins of "Pontius Pilate" along with "Herod" in the Gospel framework, there is a clear challenge to the upholders of the historicity of the Gospels to explain how these two names, the one threatening the Christos in its infancy, the other carrying him to his death, have found their way into the story in precisely the same place, role and character as the two non-historical elements of the names!
AB Kuhn Shadow of the third century
And who set that up, with the full knowledge of how it would play out? The spikes had to go through the wrists, BTW, the ligaments of the hand aren't strong enough to support a man's weight during crucifixion, they'd have torn out and he'd have fallen off.
Without wanting to incite well meaning modern christians we have to sooner or later condemn officially the monstrous fraudulent fabrication we call the bible. Without the keys it is impossible to understand the bible and while millions have clutched the tome to their bosoms virtually from birth to death it is plain as plain can be not a one of them had a clue. So it made them happy, big deal, sniffing gas will do that. We can certainly add to the list of dupes, lets start with Jews and add the Muslims followed by the Mormons etc etc etc
It should be clear to us now that to cling to exclusive power you certainly must not share the wealth of knowledge with those you wish to rule. And so they didn't, instead we got a comic book fired together under the direction of mad hatters who very early wrested control of the early church from the truly enlightened. Things could have been better these past two thousand years.
Pontius Pilate must have been a very old man.
It should be clear to us now that to cling to exclusive power you certainly must not share the wealth of knowledge with those you wish to rule. And so they didn't, instead we got a comic book fired together under the direction of mad hatters who very early wrested control of the early church from the truly enlightened. Things could have been better these past two thousand years.
Pontius Pilate must have been a very old man.
I don't believe in luck or chance. I believe the book of history has been written, and is now playing out. Harry Potter never just happened either, but happened according to the design of his author.
Furthermore, there exists no scientific principle that organization and "apparent design" (as Dawkins calls it) ever arises out of chaos and randomness. In fact, the opposite is true.
I work in software design, and we know that intelligent minds must constantly work hard to bring information together in meaningful ways (such as how it is assembled in DNA). The mutations, the randomness, the decay over time -- these things only and always work against our design and our organization. It seems that we, along with all other occupational designations, are busy with work precisely because the forces of randomness are busy doing the only thing they are able to do -- undoing everything.
Even trying to keep your house organized or your car clean is a small demonstration of this basic principle, that without deliberate intervention from intelligent beings, everything slowly but surely falls apart. (And wouldn't even be together in the first place without the deliberate creative acts of intelligent beings.)
I find with the simple Hebrew shepherd boy, that the "heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world."
I see another principle at work, that the sophisticated and worldly-wise who oppose these intuitive concepts because of their inner hatred of God are busy proclaiming their own foolishness and pouring out their own condemnation.Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world."
You are right; yet there is one only God. Not two, not three. Neither was Jesus somehow less than God. Therefore, we bow with the apostle Thomas and worship Him saying, "My Lord and my God."
For an eloquent description of this doctrine, as it is taught in scripture, you may reference the Belgic Confession, articles 8 through 11.
A good scripture, which underlines the full humanity of Christ (as that is essential to His being a mediator).
Do you leave Him there, as only a man? This is what the JWs and atheists say.
While he walked this earth, was born like a man and shed blood like a man, what else could he be but a man? I believe the message to be IN the man in that he dared to defy convention. Whatever the hocus-pocus, it can't be proven and I choose not to disprove it. I'm not JW. Should you name me atheist, you'd be putting yourself in your high chair and passing judgement again.
Isn't that exactly what it says? 'There is but one God'
It also says that Jesus is a man who is the mediator between man and God.
But, like everything, you can interpret it to suit whatever doctrine you've been told to believe.
Wrong. Again, our genetic structure does not change. What changes is which genes are switched on or off.
Yes, you are, and you're wrong. In order for us not to have any "brown-eye genes", it would never have existed in the first place. Blue-eyed people have not had the brown-eye gene switched completely off. If they had, they'd be subject to alibinism. And that condition is a recessive one.
Here, I just found this, which will explain it in more detail: http://scienceblog.com/15361/all-blue-eyed-humans-have-common-ancestor/
Romans 12:19
You're misapplying ideas from thermodynamics as the basis for an interesting but still erroneous restatement of the tired old argument from design. You've never encountered chaos theory, or self-organized criticality? Order emerges spontaneously all the time, crystals being the most obvious example. Evolution is less obvious, and a good deal more complex and subtle, but it is another means by which order and "apparent design," (which is exactly what it is) can emerge. If you look more closely at biology, what appears is an absence of design, or at best very poor design, exactly what you'd expect if a process like natural selection were driving it. There's no principle that says order must emerge, but there are principles, fully sustained by observation, that say it can and does. Science has not disproven a creator deity, it cannot, and knows it, what it's done in that context has made one unnecessary, making unbelief a respectable, defensible position. Even if you could demonstrate the existence of a deity responsible for the creation of the cosmos and everything in it, it's a long way from there to the personal deity you're talking about. In fact you can't logically get from the former to the latter, from deism to theism, without having to postulate a great deal more on the basis of no evidence at all. Even Aquinas gave up on that one.
yes.
They all can't be dormant. Just some. The others are active.
Yes he has. I mentioned it in a few previous posts.