Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christmas Star Explained
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 245 of 278 (430243)
10-24-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by simple
10-23-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Spiritual zaps red sea
the thing is that not everything in the bible means god. some sentances have other subjects. you wouldn't say that isaiah condemnations the babylonian kings is really isaiah condemning god -- well, no actually, that is just what you said here.
But God spoke, for example to one king, and launched into talking directly to Lucifer.
a common misreading. at least this is something you didn't make up on your own. "lucifer" is just the latin word for "provider of light" and generally refers to the planet venus. the planet venus, btw, is very often mistaken for UFOs. maybe the devil has a UFO?
in this case, it is a translation of the hebrew for "glorious." it's still talking about nebuchadnezzar, in an ironic sense. notice how it talks about ascending to the heavens? guess what nebby rebuilt? the tower of babel. babel. babylon. think about it.
Also, there is this
"Luke 1:31-33
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
(KJV)
The covenant God made with King David, that from David's seed a righteous King would sit on the Throne of Israel and reign over Israel forever, was specifically applied to Jesus by Gabriel. .."
yes, but from the 500 years between zedekiah and jesus, no one was king. prophecy broken.
Verse 10. From Judah the sceptre shall not depart
The Jews have a quibble on the word shebet, which we translate sceptre; they say it signifies a staff or rod, and that the meaning of it is, that "afflictions shall not depart from the Jews till the Messiah comes;" that they are still under affliction and therefore the Messiah is not come. This is a miserable shift to save a lost cause. Their chief Targumist, Onkelos, understood and translated the word nearly as we do; and the same meaning is adopted by the Jerusalem Targum, and by all the ancient versions, the Arabic excepted, which has [Arabic] kazeeb, a rod; but in a very ancient MS. of the Pentateuch in my own possession the word [Arabic] sebet is used, which signifies a tribe. Judah shall continue a distinct tribe till the Messiah shall come; and it did so; and after his coming it was confounded with the others, so that all distinction has been ever since lost."
Genesis 49 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
first of all, that's wrong. "judah" became conflated with the other tribes after the return from exile. under ezra. notice a theme here? ezra seems to come up a lot. the reason they became conflated is actually rather explicitly because they survived -- no other tribe really did, except for half of levi. judah absorbed levi -- and today, people from the tribe of judah are called "jews." judah-ite = yehudi = jude = jew. their distinction was never lost; every other tribe's was.
and second, it's still wrong. the word shebet (with a shin not a sin) is related to tribes because of tribal authority. the word is about authority.
Now, in Psalm 23 we see the word rod as well.
" Thy rod and thy staff
shibtecha, thy sceptre, rod, ensign of a tribe, staff of office; for so shebet signifies in Scripture. And thy staff, umishantecha, thy prop or support. "
Psalms 23 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
and it is indeed the same word. but look at the imagery -- god is called the good shepherd. the word comes from the curved stick a shepherd would use to keep his flock in line. it was the implement of power over the sheep -- a symbol of the shepherd's authority over them.
So, the sceptre is an ensign, or staff of office. Who's office?? In this case, God's
...no, it depends on the context. is it time for the big letters again?

context

context is everything. when it's talking about judah's authority, it's judah's authority. granted, in this case, by jacob. who was granted authority by isaac. who was granted authority by abraham. who was granted authority by god, according to the prophecy.
God's office continued till Shiloh, the messiah came! In fact He went mobile for the birth!!! He has a mobile office.
the verse is about judah. judah's authority -- and jesus was from judah. jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, not the end of it.
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
" 1. something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail
1. standard (as rallying point), signal
2. standard (pole)
3. ensign, signal "
What was lifted up over Shiloh??? The star!! And boy can it sail. It certainly was a signal for the wise men! How much more clear could this stuff be?????
it's pretty clear when you're drawing false connections, and making stuff up, yes.
you really have complete and utter disregard for the bible, don't you? no one who's read samuel would call david and solomon "mickey mouse" kings. and again, you are literally attacking the very authors of the bible -- david (supposedly) wrote most of the psalms and solomon (supposedly) wrote song of songs. you really can't built any credibility for your case if you take every opportunity to speak poorly of the bible.
If they compared them to the Almighty, of course they would. You again miss the heart and soul of the bible, God was the One behind it the writer, the inspiration, the orchestrator, the king maker, the Head Honcho.
sure, god is great, but if the people he trusted to preserve his word were complete scum by comparison, and we can't trust them or anything they wrote -- well, you're just making up excused to hand-wave the bible away. which i find highly amusing. it makes it all the more clear that you are simply making up stuff all over the place, and discarding anything that does not agree. including the very text you are trying to justify.
except that the prophecy had to do with real reality. "ultimate fulfillments" are excuses for the plainly evident truth of broken prophecy. god says david's family will rule forever -- but for 600 years, they did not.
No, you interpret it wrong. The throne that God gave David to sit on was from God, and Jesus sat on it.
there's no interpretation here. god said david's family would sit on the throne from that moment, until the end of time. in 586 bc, the last king from the house of david died. you can argue about whether or not jesus fits the bill, but it's irrelevent. for the 600 years between zedekiah and jesus, no one from the house of david was on that throne. god broke that prophecy because of judah's evil ways, with the promise that he would later restore it. this is a matter of, uh, whole books of the bible. like jeremiah.
...which has not happened yet, and will at the end of times. it's talking about the end of times.
Point??? We are in the end of times, and it has started.
the point is that it's talking about something, idiomatically, that has not happened yet, and won't happen until everything else is over. it's talking about the stuff found in zechariah 9 -- not the donkey part, the peace on earth part.
so one verse in your OP has nothing to do with the other, except that jesus is from the tribe of judah.
False. ---
Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
As brought out, HIS is the power, and the kingdom, and the glory, and the sceptre, and the office, and the throne, and the wheels!
... earthly kings existed. do you really not understand that fact? the world is not all a bunch of people on equal authority, living in a commune, following god. israeli kibbutzim are nice, and all, but generally in the outside world, some people lead and some people follow. in the bible, god grants people authority. and he takes it away. yes, the ultimate authority is god's, but the verse in genesis is talking about the earthly authority god has granted. please, please, please try to understand that.
because there were four different stories. more than four, actually. like i said, i knew you wouldn't understand this point -- you're basically asking at what point gilgamesh visited noah, before or after he got drunk.
No, Noah was first, Giggie came later. The dates are wrong. The gospels are harmonious, if you add the spiritual key to comprehend.
sure. personally, i think gilgamesh and noah are harmonious too. gilgamesh just must have visited him some time later. i say after he got drunk and his son saw him naked. oh, and that bit in the bible about him dying? well, you can't trust those dirty rotten jews. clearly, gilgamesh says god granted him immortality, being a pure soul.
this is really the calibre of your argument. you sound that silly to us. connecting things in ways that clearly are not proper. making stuff up. blaming the jewish conspiracy. quality posts, here.
ezekiel saw something special. let me phrase this in a language you'll understand -- ezekiel's vision was spiritual only. there was no physical substance to it; it was in his head, shown to him by god, to teach some mystical point. it's not something god gets around in, it was something spiritual-only for ezekiel and ezekiel only.
nowhere else in the bible is it ever described again.
Ha. No. But FYI, the starship is spiritual, but it still really can appear in this universe.
show me an instance where anything like it is clearly and unambiguously described in the bible. not just "a star." something that's definitely the same thing, described in enough detail to make it clear the author means ezekiel's merkabah. because i can show you quite a few instances where god shows up without it.
so a UFO hovered over bethlehem (or nazareth, or wherever) for two years straight, and it took astrologers from persia to notice it? nobody else, not the king, not his court, not the pharisees, no one else saw it? why was it news to herod and his priests?
Can you prove that???
read the gospel of matthew. it was news to the king.
How do we know that it never disappeared as many commentators feel it must have?? That is why many feel, the wise men were so stranngely glad to see it again.
stars disappear every morning. maybe you've noticed that it's hard to see them in the day time. just one really big one. they were glad that it HADN'T gone anywhere, after herod turned out to be a false lead.
But, since we know the Father was close by all Jesus' life, like at the baptism, etc, we can assume His ship was not that far away.
not that far away.
Depends on how high up it was!!! The shepherds were dazzled by a great light from above. They never thought of that encounter as a star.
and far away. make up your mind.
Not at all. When I say spiritual, that means the weapon or device used to part the sea was spiritual. Spiritual weapons work on things physical, you know. You simply seem to think of anything spiritual as unreal. There is a difference between unreal, and not physical only.
you simply misunderstand. regardless of spirituality, when you have a god who is physically protecting and shepherding you, fighting on your side, and giving you the physical food that you eat and water that you drink -- what reason do you have suppose that this physical salvation lacks the spiritual content as well? understand the point now? you are saying that while god was saving them physically, he was not also saving them spiritually. you are saying that god's leadership was "physical only." not me. you said that.
Great, so you admit there is nothing in the way of collaborating evidence to the bible.
Sorry, Ezra doesn't settle the issue, or even deal with it directly. You have no ark case. When they dredge it up, I will know what it really is. End of story.
one more time. that's the point. that's where the story ends. that's where the evidence stops. not in records from jesus's time, covered up by jewish conspirators. in ezra's time. ezra does settle the issue, because something is defined as "missing" when it can no longer be found. at the point of 2 kings 25, the ark of the covenant is "missing."
it's really like claiming that jimmy hoffa's been around all this time, but nobody has seen or talked to him in the last 20 years, and any financial records or similar documentation has been obscured by the mafia conspiracy. oh, and if you look for him today, you won't find him: he disappeared yesterday.
tell us another one! something goes missing when there is no longer any evidence of its present existence, and nobody can find it.
Quite an active imagination. Dreaming stuff up, however doesn't quite cut it.
you accuse me of an active imagination? that's a new one. you're talking about UFOs. i'm talking about well known cultural relations -- stuff from the bible.
We do not know they were from Persia, all of them, if any. That is assumed.
assumed with very good reason. rome would only care in the respect that herod was their king and israel belonged to them. the only other important country on the map at that time was persia -- who was on good terms with israel due to their former queen esther. they fit the bill for a place that would send royal gifts. no one else would really care all that much.
We certainly don't know they were sent by some country.
they brought gifts that one king would give to another. poor sages do not have that sort of stuff laying around the house.
Is that supposed to pass for some argument??
you wouldn't know an argument if you saw one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 6:37 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by simple, posted 10-24-2007 5:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 256 of 278 (430566)
10-26-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by simple
10-24-2007 5:45 AM


Re: Who Beamed up the Ark??
a common misreading. at least this is something you didn't make up on your own. "lucifer" is just the latin word for "provider of light" and generally refers to the planet venus. the planet venus, btw, is very often mistaken for UFOs. maybe the devil has a UFO?
Right, he was the bearer of the light of God. A physical interpretation has fallen to a planet, but there are older spiritual realities at play here.
actually, "newer dogmatic interpretations" are at play. not "older spiritual realities." this is just yet another excuse to read a text however you please, ignore the actual context and content, and claim special spiritual knowledge on your side.
*i* say, i know better than you. the holy spirit told me that the devil is really a UFO.
No. God is talking through the king directly to the devil there. Naturally, any king that would be possessed by the devil would have traits that are similar. But the true meaning is not to a worldly king there at all. Natural man cannot understand that.
no, clearly, one needs to be insane to understand many of your points. living in the real world seems to be a hinderance. reading the bible -- that'll just get in the way.
Only if the prohesy was supposed to be about mickey mouse kings. If I am right, it was not, and God and the bible are right! If you are right God and the bible are wrong, and mickey mouse.
Weight those scales, see which way they tilt, now will you??
no, that's just the problem. you can claim that god and the bible are on your side. they're not. like i have continually pointed out, god specifically says why he has broken the prophecy, and promises to re-fulfill it. this is a matter of the bible -- and making up excuses that it doesn't really mean what it says isn't going to help your case.
Then that makes me right, I said it was about God's office, throne, and authority. Thanks for that.
no, context matters! it's about the authority of whatever context it's used in. when it's used in babylon, it's babylonian authority. here's, it about JUDAH'S authority. i cant believe that 250 posts later, you still have not understood this very basic point that people have been correcting you on since your OP.
The word and Spirit are a symbol of the same. They comfort us. A stick comforts squat. The imagery is that His is the office, the throne, the ensign, and the....you got it...Sceptre!!! Over us no less.
"thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." do i need to break down this whole psalm for you? "the lord is my shepherd." it uses the imagery of a shepherd throughout.
Right! By GOD. He is the One that has the sceptre.
in the original verse, in genesis 49, it is judah being granted authority. the "sceptre" in that verse is judah's authority. not a UFO.
No. It is about the SCEPTRE!!!!!!! God's office, throne authority, and including starship, and kings!
it's really obvious that you don't have much to add here. you plainly cannot read a verse for what it actually says, or means. you just wanna see UFOs. i can't help you.
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
" 1. something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail
1. standard (as rallying point), signal
2. standard (pole)
3. ensign, signal "
What was lifted up over Shiloh??? The star!! And boy can it sail. It certainly was a signal for the wise men! How much more clear could this stuff be?????
it's pretty clear when you're drawing false connections, and making stuff up, yes.
No, the Hebrew really means that. And the Christmas star really was a sign. And more.
the hebrew? what hebrew, where? in what verse? let me phrase it like this: so you're going to have to do a little better than "the hebrew" when you reference an english word not in relation to a verse, but in relation to a word you introduced.
What the Prince of peace brings in is related to His birth. It was not finished then, but in progress.
that's great. it's been in progress for the last 2,000 years, then. in the meantime, war still happens. including all those inquisition and crusades. so he hasn't exactly succeded yet. and if the reference was to "peace on earth" missing it by 2,000 years does not exactly make the case that it means jesus.
Of Giggy said that he was right. Noah was granted eternal life. I plan to have a beer with him.
oh, and it's also compatible with battlestar galactica, btw. noah's boat was a battlestar, afterall. look, i could really go on all day with this sort of nonsense and arbitrary connection drawing. what you're doing is silly, and irresponsible with the text.
I never said He was chained to the thing!!??? But you show me where He showed up, and then show me it was the Father, not the son, and we can talk turkey. Even then, you need to show where the wheels were not simply just out of sight of man at the time.
see, this is just the problem. you have an ad-hoc explanation ready for everything. "parked somewhere out of sight" and "cloaking devices" and the identity of god -- you're just introducing more and more material that the authors of the bible didn't include. you're adding to the bible, saying they didn't know the truth. only you do. are you a false prophet, simple? the bible says to stone you.
stars disappear every morning. maybe you've noticed that it's hard to see them in the day time. just one really big one. they were glad that it HADN'T gone anywhere, after herod turned out to be a false lead.
Let's see them disappear every morning for over a year, and you got a case! Until then, be amazed.
you must not get out much. stars disappear every morning. for a year. for ten years. for 100 years. for 1,000 years. for as long as the world has been rotating. surely you have noticed this simple fact of life that the sun rises every morning?
I meant that they came from Persia, all of them, for sure. Not that the king was as thick as bricks.
the king was "thick as bricks" because he wasn't an astrologer. nor was anyone else in israel. which is why no one noticed a new and significant star. but people from persia would have, because there were alot of astrologically-inclined people there. which is why the king sent astrologers. why persia? as i keep explaining, only persia had reason to care.
Not at all. The stuff that the Babylonians took, or wrecked did not include the ark. Of course. The ark was safe. The people God called to deal with Israel did what they were to do. He was on top of the situation.
sure. maybe the ark was hidden safely somewhere. the problem is that it never came back from its hiding place, because it's not in the second temple that ezra built under cyrus the great. and we know that, because it's not in his book. any other story you create is ad-hoc mental masturbation. no one knows where it went, not even you, because it simply disappears from history at that point.
for you to even claim that god took the ark when jesus rose from the dead, you would first half to show that the ark was even there. until that point, the default assumption is that it went missing 600 years earlier, around the time it was last documented to be anywhere.
He may have took it in the starship for a bit, for all we know.
and i love how "UFO!" is your go-to explanation.
A starship can be far away, or closer, that has to do with moving. Unlike a star.
a starship cannot be both far away and close at the same time. that was sort of the point. it was close by for all of jesus's life, but far enough away that no one could see it.
First you make stuff up, that a country, and not just wise men gave the gifts, then you play 'name that dreamed up country'. Foolishness.
no, UFOs are foolishness. actual analysis of the story is not. magi were the official astrologers of the persian religion, zoroastrianism. they were advisors to the king, in much the same way prophets were to jewish kings. the place we know about magi from? persia. the home of the religion they belonged to? persia. the king they served? persian. the gifts they brought? royal. people who weren't kings did not have gold, frankincense, and myrh. that's sort of the point, that jesus was a king. they were the gifts that one would give to a king -- and the person who had them already was probably a king.
Who thought the wise men were poor??? The poor didn't generally go travelling around the world, following a star!
and certainly not with gifts that would have come from a royal treasury.
you wouldn't know an argument if you saw one.
Well, from this thread, you might have something. Work on that.
why don't you work on it. try thinking rationally, for a change. start reading the bible, especially in larger sections. pay attention to context, and meaning, and stop trying to draw arbitrary connections. stop looking for UFOs. stop reading preconceived notions into the book, and just read what's on the page. and quit the ad-hoc imaginative mental gymnastics. all you're doing is belittling the bible, and god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by simple, posted 10-24-2007 5:45 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 8:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 259 of 278 (430676)
10-26-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Vacate
10-26-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Clarifying Positions
Had he been aware of this concern before the issue presented itself (omnipotence) he could have created/moved Heaven long before he even made earth let alone man! He was only concerned about us after we discovered a loophole in his rules to reach Heaven.
So you are suggesting that Angels wanting to marry women and conduct business was more important that creating one version of Heaven that did not require modification or relocation? Not having the temptation 2-3000 feet above those poor souls heads would have alleviated the need for relocation, creation of languages, shifting of continents and rampant mountain building. The solution is obvious even if you or the God of your story cannot comprehend it.
...
So God found it nessesary to have Heaven 2-3000 feet above these wicked people to tempt them and see if they really would be wicked? Was he unaware that these wicked people would try to reach Heaven and gain eternal life? Was he not quite omnipotent enough to get it?
the problem is actually not so much with simple, here. it is with the bible. the god of genesis is rather petty, violent, human, and not-so-omnipotent. heaven, in genesis, is literally just overhead as a physical place.
what simple is trying to do is rectify this rather plain truth with the equally plain truth that we don't see things like that today. the standard inerrantist's method is by saying that both actually mean the same thing. simple takes the minority route, and claims that something changed. he then goes the extra step, and makes up stories to go with it. in this respect, he's like a less coherent pseudepigraphica.
what i take issue with is the butchering of the bible that goes with this. insisting, in many cases, that the bible just does not offer the whole story. and in several places, that the bible was written by evil coniving jewish conspirators and christ killers, who intentionally left out bits of his story (600 years before the fact), to cover their asses. i also take issue with the "decoder ring" version of the bible, that we need our extra-special holy spiritTM decoder ring to understand the bible, and if we just merely read the words on the page, as written, we're missing the big picture. this is really just an excuse to make stuff up, claim it as divine, and if we're not agreeing we must be heathens. it's really simple claiming that he's a prophet out of one side of his mouth, and out of the other saying that god is a liar. after all, god wrote the book (according to simple) and didn't write it in such a way that it's of any actual use (according to simple's arguments) because we need god to read it to us. this is, as you and i have both brought up, basically what the bible says a false prophet will do -- lead people astray, away from god, claiming to be from god. i think we know what the bible says to do with false prophets.
Though I initially refused to specify what I felt the bible was saying about the “star of Bethlehem” as I felt it was off topic in a discussion about your story, I later presented a fictional story based on a Stephen King story as an attempt at humor in hopes of it alleviating your need for my alternate story even though it was off topic. It was clearly not a factual account of my faith, belief, or religion and I did specify that it was a baseless story concocted from a modern day fictional horror story.
You have since made repeated assertions that this was a statement of my faith based on my poor choice in the use of the word “believe” that I have since quoted, elaborated, and clarified. Its plainly obvious that I do not deny the use of the word, but it is also obvious that you have attempted to use this situation as some form of grounds to accuse me of lying. I have not lied, I have made many attempts to show that I have not lied and you simply will not accept my clarification about this situation. I have asked for nothing from you but clarification of your position but you continue to attempt to misrepresent mine on one issue.
Your misrepresentation is further evidence of your continued underhanded tactics that you have used throughout this discussion. Though I have made some errors in my understanding of your position I have repeatedly asked for clarification and have adjusted accordingly. The story in question is yours and asking for clarity on your stance to alleviate misunderstandings has been my main goal. You however are obviously not interested in the same tactic. Misrepresentation is your prime goal on this one issue and you have not one single time shown any effort to change this tactic.
Further attempts to use misrepresentation about the story I presented will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. Further attempts to portray me as a liar due to my mistaken use of the word “belief” will not be addressed and I will simply quote the above statement. I do not expect you to retract as you have not done so at any point in time so far, as such I will no longer waste my time on this particular off topic accusation and obvious dishonest behavior - I will simply quote the above statement.
i don't think he's doing it on purpose. i think he just doesn't know any better. he makes up stuff to explain the bible, and connect disparate writings, and he assumes that when you do the same (in a much more mocking fashion) that you actually mean it. because he actually means it. your reading purple frogs into the star of bethlehem, to him, is no different than him reading a UFO into it. it just makes less sense, in his mind. he similarly rejected my proposal that the star was actually the ark of the covenant (which was also noah's ark, which was also a UFO). and that actually made more sense (symbolically) than any of his proposals.
it's clear that he's just making stuff up wherever he sees fit, and it has no bearing on sense, reality, or "the holy spirit." he just happens to like his nonsense story over the other nonsense stories we've offered, regardless of the obvious degree of nonsense. why? he's dealing with a nonsense premise regarding the bible, and further ad-hoc nonsense is the only way he can seemingly make sense of something that was never truly meant to make the kind of sense he assumes must be there.
and now, he's being called on the nonsense results, because they have been built up to such a degree that they no longer resemble their foundation in the slightest, and his results disagree with his own premise. in defending god and the bible the way he has, he has made them look silly beyond belief.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Vacate, posted 10-26-2007 1:33 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 5:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 263 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 264 of 278 (430747)
10-27-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by simple
10-26-2007 8:54 PM


simple's continued blasphemy
No, it is pretty clear who God is talking to. Another instance of God talking to satan through a king is in Isa 14.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
that's ezekiel 28, another commonly and easily refuted "devil" passage. just break it apart -- the imagery used is of the cherubim that god placed in eden after adam and eve were exiled. then of the breastplate that aaron wore when inside the tabernacle. then of the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim on top. it's talking about protection, and how the king of tyre was charged by god to protect his kingdom but has instead betrayed it. none of the imagery even remotely fits satan, who was never charged with protecting anything, and (by your account, i'm sure) had already fallen from grace long before the things described here. you are making the devil out to have more authority than he deserves. blasphemy.
sorry. but content and context still matter.
Depends if you read it as a spiritually minded man, or a natural man.
how about if i read it for what it says, instead of what a false prophet like yourself says it says. this "spiritually minded" stuff is just drivel, and you know it. it's an excuse to make up lies about the bible. more blasphemy.
Where does He say He broke the prophesy??
actually, the word you're really looking for is "covenant." and according to the bible, it was judah that broke it. god held up his end of the bargain, but mortal man failed. covenants are contracts, and because judah defaulted on their agreement, god was no longer held to his. at least, that's the premise of the the book of jeremiah. god continues to reassure the people in jeremiah 33 that there will always be a king of david on the throne, but the fact of the matter is, that zedekiah was the last davidic king to rule israel.
Nonsense. What is to not depart from the land, and people of Judah was something in particular. Not a stick. A sceptre. That was what would stay, the office of God, the rule and presence, etc of God, for a certain time period only, till Jesus came. Period.
that's nice, but you're still misreading the verse. especially because "sceptre" means "stick." look up the hebrew word used there, shebet. i know you've done it before. do it again. post it again, so everyone can continue to see just how your sources disagree with you.
quote:
Judah is a lion's whelp;
On prey, my son, you have grown.
He crouches, lies down like a lion,
Like the king of beasts -- who dares rouse him?
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet;
So that tribute shall come to him*
And the homage of peoples be his.
*Shiloh, understood as shai loh "tribute to him," following Midrash; cf Isa. 18.7. Meaning of Heb. uncertain; lit. "Until he comes to Shiloh."
i've grouped the lines in pairs, so that you can see the parallels more easily. notice the "lion" theme? perhaps you've heard the "lion of judah" expression before. but "sceptre" here is paralleled with "ruler's staff." it's a stick. it's about judah's ruling class status. this translation even groups "shi-loh" as parallel to "homage" and renders it as if someone forgot to put a space there. which, btw, is an entirely possible scribal error.
And, WHO was that Shepherd??! God. The rod was a symbol of that office, an ensign. Like the starship is a symbol of God's office, and was a sign at the first Chrismas.
the problem is that we are dealing with the same word. the "rod" in psalm 23 is the "sceptre" in genesis 49. they are the same thing, and mean the same thing.
No it is God's office, over Judah. That included a UFO. The mobile throne as clearly described in the bible. His rule and Sceptre did continue till Jesus came, no broken squat.
you are rather blatantly ignoring what the text actually says. judah ruled israel. this is a matter of biblical fact: david was from the tribe of judah. jesus was from the tribe of judah. each and every king of judah (the country) was from the tribe of judah -- and so was every king of israel (the country). all hebrew kings, in the bible, are from judah. this (genesis 49:10) is the place in the bible that jacob (israel) grants that authority. it's not about a UFO. it's about judah's right to kings. without it, you are effectively denying everything after this in the bible.
As already posted...
what you posted was:
quote:
The hebrew meaning for ensign is this--
"ensign" is an english word. the hebrew word you are looking for is or some derivitive of . you cannot say "the hebrew meaning for {an english word}." it makes no sense. you can say, "the word is {hebrew word} and that means {english word}."
" Thy rod and thy staff
shibtecha, thy sceptre, rod, ensign of a tribe, staff of office; for so shebet signifies in Scripture. And thy staff, umishantecha, thy prop or support. "
Psalms 23 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Look, and learn.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
Right, He started by bringing peace to the hearts of men of good will, that come to Jesus. Sorry if you think undoing the evil caused by Adam's sin was a quick fix!! It cost His life, and a few thousand years of hard work, not to mention the thousands of years of prep work, before man was even ready for Jesus to come. But we are on the verge of the second coming, when He will end all wars.
that's great. but that hasn't happened yet.
see, this is just the problem. you have an ad-hoc explanation ready for everything. "parked somewhere out of sight" and "cloaking devices" and the identity of god -- you're just introducing more and more material that the authors of the bible didn't include. you're adding to the bible, saying they didn't know the truth. only you do. are you a false prophet, simple? the bible says to stone you.
False, Jesus hid who He really was from His disciples for a while, even after He rose, they thought He was the gardener! Angels are entertained unawares, as the bible puts it. Cloaked, or in disguise, is what this means. This is bible basics 101, and you think it is new material??
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith. no, "cloaking devices" are forbidden for use by the united federation of planets, thanks to the treaty of algernon signed with the romulan empire.
you must not get out much. stars disappear every morning. for a year. for ten years. for 100 years. for 1,000 years. for as long as the world has been rotating. surely you have noticed this simple fact of life that the sun rises every morning?
Well, many realize that the star did seem to disappear and reappear.
again, stars disappear every morning.
The star disappeared just as suddenly as it appeared. This is why the Magi stopped in Jerusalem to ask for directions instead of going straight to Bethlehem.
they didn't stop in jerusalem for directions. they stopped in jerusalem to see the new king, jerusalem being the seat of power in israel. it was the pharisees who told them to go to bethlehem. which you have repeatedly said was not where they went.
"In support of the comet theory is the implication in the Matthew text that the "star" disappeared for a while before reappearing over Bethlehem. Comets cannot be seen when they pass behind the sun."
stars disappear every morning. do you really think they went and visitted herod the great in the middle of the night? like crazed mad-men kings would entertain guests in the middle of the night. they'd be lucky to get an audience in the daytime.
"These theories all fail to explain how "the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was" (Matthew 2:9). The position of a fixed star in the heavens varies at most one degree each day.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
one degree, my ass. they appear to rotate around the north star, one complete rotation (that's THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY degrees) every single day. closer to the equators, that's a complete trek across the night sky. every night. stars move.
Need more??? This is not a secret, you treat it like I made this stuff up.
no, i treat the UFO stuff like you made it up. because you did. but this sort of idiocy isn't new -- nor does it agree with your sci-fi story.
the king was "thick as bricks" because he wasn't an astrologer. nor was anyone else in israel. which is why no one noticed a new and significant star. but people from persia would have, because there were alot of astrologically-inclined people there. which is why the king sent astrologers. why persia? as i keep explaining, only persia had reason to care.
An interesting, albeit, unsupportable opinion. There was no limitation saying only men wise about things like stars had to live in Iran.
persia. what part of this are you not getting? magi come from persia. you're basically saying the equivalent of "levites don't have to come from israel."
Even though they did have a Jewish girl there, that doesn't mean Iran sent them, or that they all came from Persia.
jewish girl? you're talking about esther, queen of persia, born hadassah of israel. are you really that unfamiliar with the bible? and must you be so incredibly disrespectful of it?
Not at all so. The omission of the fact that it did get into the holy of holies in one bible book is in no way a clincher.
that's like saying that "just because elvis isn't listed in the book of numbers doesn't mean he wasn't around for the exodus!" yes, actually, it does. numbers is the book that records the people there. ezra is the book that records the reconstruction of the temple. if somebody isn't in numbers -- they weren't there. if something isn't in ezra -- it wasn't there. period.
Conversely, if there was a holy of holies with no ark in it, symbolizing the very presence of God, that would be documented six ways from Saturday.
no, actually, here it would just be good enough to have not mentioned it. judah had, 70 years earlier, been completely demolished by the chaldeans of babylon. we're talking holocaust and forced relocation. everything they knew was destroyed. putting the ark away somewhere safe was a possibility -- not mentioning it in kings could be overlooked as a safegaurd so the babylonians didn't find it. but by ezra, they had nothing to worry about. ezra was the glorious return, god remembering his promises and restoring the kingdom.
what was left of judah was so utterly destroyed that it had to be rebuilt from scratch -- the return of the ark would be seen as a major blessing. its absence would be seen as a loss of the exile.
'Gee, we still did all the rigmarole ceremonies, without the heart and soul of the temple, because.....' Or at least some records of it being not there. All you have is it simply not being recorded in Ezra. Whoopee do.
you seem to view the bible as very incomplete. author forgetting to mention things like the ark of the covenant, and giant UFOs in the sky. frankly, things probably got on just fine without the ark. the only people even allowed into the holy of holies were the cheif priest and very select few others. most of the temple functions took place outside this area.
Why else would God rip open the veil, and take it back?? Shiloh was here, and He was heading for higher ground now.
sometimes, i'm not even sure you understand your own posts.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the real presence of God in that ark to BE on earth!!!
and now you tell god what he cannot do? heresy.
Jesus is the way to heaven now, and THE link with heaven. Shiloh is here. Any ark found is a replica, or some such, and not at all connected to heaven.
i hate to break it to you then, but the original ark was man-made. it didn't magically come down from heaven. people built it. a very large section of the book of exodus is devoted to its design and construction. god's hand plays no role in the actual execution; he only specifies the design. would you care to tell me how, in your post-split world, "physical-only" man builds an object that is transcendant, merging the spirit and the physical? and if man can do that...
If you don't believe me, when the "find" it, call me over, and I'll touch it, even knocky knock on it, and say, 'come out come out, wherever you are' on it, to prove I won't be killed by God, for so doing.
quote:
You shall not tempt the LORD your God
Deuteronomy 6:16
It is in heaven as Rev 11:19 says.
revelation 11 is about the future.
or you to even claim that god took the ark when jesus rose from the dead, you would first half to show that the ark was even there. until that point, the default assumption is that it went missing 600 years earlier, around the time it was last documented to be anywhere.
False. as just explained, Jesus assumed that role of link with the Father, nothing on earth else could exist, as such.
ok, since your response doesn't actually make any semblance of sense whatsoever, i'll repeat myself: for you to claim that the ark disappeared when jesus rose from the dead, you would first have to show that it was present and accounted for at around that time. until you do that, the last record of its existance is around 600 years before that, so the default assumption must be that it was missing long before jesus even lived. now, if you have any real information to add here, and not simply idle speculation and making-shit-up storytelling, there are a whole boatload of ark-hunters who are chomping at the bit for even one more morsel of information on the ark's whereabouts.
and i love how "UFO!" is your go-to explanation.
When it is heaven you are going to, can you think of a better way???
yes. in fact, the bible describes quite a few. towers. ladders. chariots of fire. whirlwinds. jesus.
It was seen when it wanted to be. It was like a Christmas light with dimmers. It could shine bright in the sky. It could come down low, and shine a great light on shepherds, no doubt. It could appear or dissapear, yet still be around. What else could do all that, and more????
apparently, your imagination can.
why don't you work on it. try thinking rationally, for a change. start reading the bible, especially in larger sections. pay attention to context, and meaning, and stop trying to draw arbitrary connections. stop looking for UFOs. stop reading preconceived notions into the book, and just read what's on the page. and quit the ad-hoc imaginative mental gymnastics. all you're doing is belittling the bible, and god.
Why? So, after all that, I could end up not believing it an any real way???
that's the danger, isn't it? that if you actually bother to understand the bible, you might find you disagree with it. so instead, you simply ignore (belittle, deride) the bible, and make up your own stories instead. no danger there, you'll always agree with yourself. except, as this thread has shown a few times, when you don't. but that's the good thing, you rarely realize when you've contradicted yourself. it takes someone else to point it out to you.
So I would think an ark, with the spirit of the Father is hiding in some dank tunnel cave, or someplace, and that Jesus dies in vain??
i think we've hit on the fundamental problem here. for you, "putting god into a box" isn't just an expression. you seem to literally believe that god lives in a box! how peculiar! what a tiny god you must believe in. no wonder he needs a UFO to get around. and your jesus, all he does is steal that golden box. mreley saving the souls of all humanity would be such a worthless, "vain" gesture. still more heresy.
So I could believe the Christmas star is another fable,
you are the only person here that is creating a fable around it. the rest of us are quite comfortable with the idea that god manipulated the heavens in such a way that astrologers would get the message about a king in israel. after all, my god creates stars. moving them is not an issue. but it seems to be a big problem for your weak little god and his UFO. how blasphemous can you get?
Maybe it is you that need to take stock, and smell the roses.
your roses smell like the manure they are planted in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 10-26-2007 8:54 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 5:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 265 of 278 (430748)
10-27-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by simple
10-27-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Clarifying Positions
Though not addressed to me, it is a false slur about me.
"false" would be the wrong word.
The leaders of Israel of Jesus' day did not write the bible. I already made clear that your obsessing on Ezra not listing it as returned, or whatever is trivial. I do not think that they could have changed actual old scriptures. I would hope so, anyhow.
yes, and your excuse was, as you repeated several times was that we cannot trust the records of "christ killers." it's not my fault that you did not understand the records i was talking about were in the bible and that you were very literally committing an anti-semitic racial slur against the very people who are responsible for the documents you claim to value.
your argument is utterly reprehensible, disgusting, and just plain ridiculous.
As I explained, the records that were likely affected were other things, that had to do with the life of Jesus.
and as i explained, i was talking about the bible. but it's become increasingly clear in this thread that you have no interest in the bible.
The reality that God reveals to His people, not to others is well established fact. Indisputable. Old, and new testaments.
see, that's the problem, simple. you are trying to play the upperhand, that you are "god's people" and the people who disagree with you are not. nevermind that is often other christians you are disagreeing with.
Oh, hec no. I have nothing that remotely disagrees with the bible, or the split.
this thread has clearly demonstrated that most of what you say is completely un-biblical, and sometimes anti-biblical. and sometimes, even anti-semitic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 12:13 AM simple has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 268 of 278 (430812)
10-27-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by simple
10-27-2007 5:23 AM


You chose to naturalize the meaning of what is being said. That is an option, but then you miss almost everything that is really going on.
no, for something to be "really going on" it has to actually be there in the text, not just something that has been read into it that was not the intentions of the author. you go looking for the devil, and you will find him. everywhere. but it's just your paranoid self-delusion.
A false natural only minded surface take on what God is saying is virtually worthless. If you try to explain away the spiritual, you have a worthless book. Do you have a fireplace??? It might be cold this winter, at least use it for something of value. Be honest.
i find it odd that barring your crazy made-up stories, you would treat the bible as fire kindling. i assure you, the bible is not worthless if you actually read it for what it is. there is no need to make up stories. it's a good book. there is a lot of spiritual content, and nobody is explaining it away. we're arguing against the spiritual non-content. the stuff you have made up that, in effect, negates the spiritual content that is actually there. instead of reading bits about the holy blessing of a king, you see UFOs. instead of imagery of jewish priests, you see the devil. instead of condemnations of an earthly king who thought he was god, you see an angel that you treat like he might as well be.
I looked at that chapter, and find refutation to your whole case.
Jeremiah 33:15
jeremiah 33 does indeed promise the messiah, which is why i mentioned it. the problem is that we are still faced with reality in which the last king of judah, from the line of david, dies in 586 BC. the person you are saying would fulfill this comes almost 600 years later. but you're still missing the point -- god didn't break anything, judah did. god withdrew his blessing (like it or not) from judah. now, i know this is hard for you, but try to think about the order here. jeremiah promises the messiah because there was no king of judah.
so "judah will have kings until the messiah comes" makes no sense. there was no need for the messiah until judah did not have kings.
That's nice. So the stick will not depart from Judah!!! What natural only nonsense. Thanks for that.
*headdesk*
not a stick. it's a word that symbolizes judah's authority to rule. judah's authority will not depart. it's not a UFO!
Absolutely false. Nothing could be more false than to deny the spirit, without which, there is only death.
Ro 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Gotcha.
try deuteronomy 13. because, you see, romans chapter 8 is not talking about what you are saying. you are using it (and other quotemined "prooftexts") as an excuse to claim that those who do not agree with your ludicrous mishandling of the bible are outsiders, fooled by god. you turn god into a liar, a devil. the bible says to stone people like you.
That is not a problem, it was my point. Thanks for that. The ensign was not a stick. The office and rule was not a stick. The throne of David passed to messiah was not a piece of wood.
no. it was royalty. how do you really not get this? the word means "a staff signifying leadership." even you agree to that -- it's just that this staff is NOT a UFO! it's not really anything, not even a physical object. the verse only means judah's leadership.
great. now, read what you wrote. i'll help: "ensign of a tribe, staff of office." how does that mean "UFO?" it means "a stick that signifies authority."
It means the ruler, God, and whatever signs He gives. The sign of the Christmas star is an example, and that was not a stick. Really. Neither did dead old Judah have squat to do with it personally. Deal with it.
i can't help you. you don't even want to read the bible honestly. you just want to distort it into nonsense and lies.
again, stars disappear every morning.
They don't guide men to houses, or reappear on cue, as needed, after disappearing for what is obviously more than the normal day a star is not seen. That is ignorant.
stars do reappear -- every evening. do you really not understand this? do i have to spell this out for you? the magi observed the night sky, which told then a new king was born to israel. they went to visit the king in jerusalem, DURING THE DAY, but only found herod, who was very confused about the matter not being an astrologer. the pharisees told them to go to bethlehem. during their journey, the star re-appeared in the evening, and it's normal path through the night sky led them to the house.
stars are fixed. the planet rotates. this really isn't hard to understand.
If a star that is fixed moves before you, guiding you to the son of God, planets and stars have nothing, possibly to do with it.
did you not understand the fancy picture i posted? that's what happens when you point a camera at the night sky, and leave the shutter open all night. the stars appear to move, in great circular tracks across the sky. planets make even loopier paths. your point is retarded: stars appear to move.
mary from migdal recognized him just fine. you're essentially talking about the biblical account of a "double take." of course they wouldn't have thought it was him at first -- he was dead as a doornail three days earlier. but they very quickly figured out it was him. even "doubting" thomas, so you can't argue it was faith.
Nothing remotely similar to that, by any whacked out stretch of the natural mind.
if you saw a dead guy walking around, you wouldn't think it was him at first either. no cloaking devices required.
No. That is unknown, and assumed. If wise men traveled, you can't say they all had to start from the same country.
ok, let's try this again. what country do levites come from?
jewish girl? you're talking about esther, queen of persia, born hadassah of israel. are you really that unfamiliar with the bible? and must you be so incredibly disrespectful of it?
Nowhere does it hint that the queen sent wise men to Israel. That is silly.
you really have reading comprehension difficulty, don't you? that was not what i said. i said that persia was the only country that had any reason to even care about israel, because they had (past tense) a jewish queen. esther had been dead for about 400 years at this point.
that's like saying that "just because elvis isn't listed in the book of numbers doesn't mean he wasn't around for the exodus!" yes, actually, it does. numbers is the book that records the people there. ezra is the book that records the reconstruction of the temple. if somebody isn't in numbers -- they weren't there. if something isn't in ezra -- it wasn't there. period.
No. The granddad that was the high priest, as the temple was destroyed was put to death. His grandson was right there, and built the alter, etc. Would they really start the sacrifices without the ark??? Celebrate the feast of tabernacles, etc?? I see no reason to think so.
yes, sacrifices got on just fine without the ark. don't believe me? consult your own ludicrous story. the second temple stood until about 70 AD, when the romans demolished it. sacrifices went for another 40 years after jesus was executed. if they can't do sacrifices without the ark, it must have still been there. take your pick, at least one of your points has to be wrong.
as for the altar, no, you can't do sacrifices with an altar. the second temple had a rather large one, as documented by history. and that is not as important an object as the ark of the covenant.
think we've hit on the fundamental problem here. for you, "putting god into a box" isn't just an expression. you seem to literally believe that god lives in a box! how peculiar! what a tiny god you must believe in. no wonder he needs a UFO to get around. and your jesus, all he does is steal that golden box. mreley saving the souls of all humanity would be such a worthless, "vain" gesture. still more heresy.
Nope. The ark represented His spirit and presence. It was like a link with heaven.
your god lives in a box. literally.
So He danced a star around, right to the house of Jesus, and no one else recorded it in other countries???
curiously, only the bible records any of this.
Think about it. Jesus assuming a man's body did not make Him little. If the Father boogies around sometimes in a UFO, that doesn't make Him little.
it sure makes him smaller than a god who moves stars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 5:23 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 9:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 271 of 278 (430855)
10-27-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
10-27-2007 9:50 PM


no, for something to be "really going on" it has to actually be there in the text, not just something that has been read into it that was not the intentions of the author. you go looking for the devil, and you will find him. everywhere. but it's just your paranoid self-delusion.
The author was God, and His spirit, so to perceive the intentions the spirit is required. Get over it.
both your premise and your conclusion are faulty. a god who writes in cryptic tomes such that only the select few, or this case, the select one can understand it, is a god of lies. you are painting god to be a liar, someone who says one thing but means another.
The wheels are real. The throne is real. The guiding the wise men was real. The star prophesy was real. The fact that you want to neuter the spiritual from the bible only neuters you potential to actually understand it. That is plainly brought out in the bible, I even posted some verses on it.
i do not want to neuter anything from the bible, and i am quite happy to acknowledge the spiritual importance of it. what i want to "neuter" is the sort of lunacy that you are trying to spread.
The messiah was promised from the beginning, long before there were kings in Israel, or an Israel.
again, you are essentially saying that god's presence among the israelites (at times like the exodus) was "physical only." who is neutering the spiritual content of the bible now? you are. why do you suppose that people who are literally following god through the barren wilderness, relying on him for their very daily bread, would be lacking anything spiritually from god?
You interpret the sceptre as meaning kings, that is your problem, and leaves you with broken prophesy, a useless bible, and a God missing in action.
perhaps you see the bible that way. that is not my issue. that is yours. you have continually denigrated the bible in this discussion. advocating its use as toilet paper and fire kindling. the rest of us, who have read the bible, appreciate it a little more. even if it were nothing more than lies, it would be an incredible historical work filled with philosophical arguments and beautiful poetry. that you cannot see this in the bible speaks volumes of your mindset. i am debating you because of your mistreatment of a volume of texts that i respect. you seem to have no respect for it, or you would listen to what it says instead of the voices in your head.
and the fact of the matter, god did abandon the children of judah for a time. he says so himself. you will just have to take that issue up with the bible itself, where god describes the coming exile and destruction of the temple. you will have to take that issue up with lamentations, mourning the exile. you will have to take that up with king david, who wrote "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" you will have to take that up with your saviour who quoted david's words as he died on the cross.
Complete nonsense and doctrine. Man needed a savior since the fall. Israel was one step on the way there, and it's silly little pip squeak kings, most of whom seemed to be desperately wicked, and idolaters anyhow, had diddley much to do with it. If you miss God's office, you miss the whole thing.
there whole books devoted to this kings. there are books whose authorship is attributed to this kings -- in your view, god spoke through these people. your view is utterly disrespectful of the entirety of the bible.
No, it is a word that symbolizes God's authority, and He is the only one in the bible that ever had a sceptre.
this demonstrably untrue. i quoted in a previous post references to the kings of egypt, babylon, and persia all wielding sceptres as symbols of their power. but you evidently have such a short memory that i will have to post them again.
quote:
Est 8:4 Then the king held out the golden sceptre toward Esther. So Esther arose, and stood before the king,
quote:
Zec 10:11 And he shall pass through the sea with affliction, and shall smite the waves in the sea, and all the deeps of the river shall dry up: and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away.
quote:
Isa 14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers.
it is a symbol of earthly power, and applied to god when god is being portrayed as king.
His sceptre did remain till after Shiloh came.
again, god's blessing on israel and judah was anything but constant. read the bible and it will tell you so.
The Father stuck around till Jesus took over the job.
i'm sorry, what? jesus took over god's job?
You think it only took them a day to get to the palace now?? Or are you suggesting they were ecstatic every night for a year and some months, or whatever it took to get there???
no, they were happy it did not disappear.
Can you demonstrate the normal path of a star leading a pizza delivery boy to your house?? Call up, and instead of an address just say 'follow that star'. Yeah right. Get a grip.
you're still not getting it. these weren't pizza delivery boys. they were astrologers. why is this so hard to understand? astrologers get information from stars.
Of course they slow motion appear to move across the sky. Now, order that pizza, and show us the demo. Remember, I am even allowing you to tell then the city you are in. Work on that.
your whole attitude in this thread from the very beginning has been simply ridiculous. do you not understand the word "miracle?"
If it was my best friend, and, in Mary's case, almost like a husband, I think people would recognize them. Yes.
"almost like a husband" is completely undocumented, da vinci code conspiracy theory quality stuff. it's possible, but there is very little in the text that would make us actually think that. and she did recognize him, very quickly, just not at first.
persia was the only country that had any reason to even care about israel, because they had (past tense) a jewish queen. esther had been dead for about 400 years at this point.
That is nonsense. Many countries knew of Israel.
you're still not reading. just because today we all view the world in a judeo-christian-centric fashion doesn't mean that everyone always did. israel is part of our cultural tradition -- but in the first century AD it wasn't part of anyone's tradition.
except persia. do you understand this now? "knowing of" and "caring about" are two very different things. only persia would have cared.
But it doesn't say countries sent them. Why make stuff up, and read things into it that aren't there???? Then you accuse others of a comprehension problem, because they never tuned in to your little fantasy trip??
yes, that magi (persian astrologers) were from persia is making stuff up. but UFOs, that's obvious! come on.
ok, let's try this again. what country do levites come from?
Easy, the US, Britain, Jordan, Argentina, Canada, and etc. Why?? Just like Iranians! They are all over. Traveling is a wonderful thing.
*sigh*
are you really this obtuse? perhaps i should have stipulated "in the ancient world." today people are very cosmopolitan, and in this country in particular, people come from all over and still retain their cultural identity. but in the ancient world, cultural identity and national identity were much more closely linked. levites were jewish priests -- they came from either judah, or israel. magi were persian priests -- they came from persia.
and besides, "iranian" means "from iran."
try deuteronomy 13. because, you see, romans chapter 8 is not talking about what you are saying. you are using it (and other quotemined "prooftexts") as an excuse to claim that those who do not agree with your ludicrous mishandling of the bible are outsiders, fooled by god. you turn god into a liar, a devil. the bible says to stone people like you.
Readers, just listen to this guy weird out. Without the spiritual, as the bible says, you just can't get it. Got it??
you're talking about UFOs. don't forget that. you're also talking about spiritualistic nonsense that runs contrary to what the word of god says. the bible says to stone you, as you are a false prophet advocating that we follow other gods.
yes, sacrifices got on just fine without the ark. don't believe me? consult your own ludicrous story. the second temple stood until about 70 AD, when the romans demolished it. sacrifices went for another 40 years after jesus was executed. if they can't do sacrifices without the ark, it must have still been there. take your pick, at least one of your points has to be wrong.
Sure one could. Just sew up the veil, and pretend it is business as usual! The show must go on. After all, not like anyone was going in there to check!!!!
in other words, you admit that you're wrong. you can perform sacrifices without the ark of the covenant, which means that it didn't have to be there in the first place.
That is why, in my opinion, God sent the Romans to stop that show,
god didn't send the romans. they were already there. the romans controlled judea before jesus was born. didn't you read any of the gospels? herod was a roman-installed king. pontious pilate was a roman governor. the messiah people were expecting was the one that would lead the rebellion against the romans, and many supposed messiahs of the age did or rather tried to. in fact, when things actually came to a head, in 70 ad, and the rebellion actually happened, the jews lost. the temple was destroyed by the romans as punishment, and rome began calling the area "philistia" (or "palestine") to add insult to injury. that title remained in effect until 1948, when the modern state of israel was founded.
seriously, learn your history. some of this is even in the bible.
and will send the Antichrist to stop the sacrifices when they shortly start up again!!!!
under deuteronomical law, sacrifices can only be performed at the temple. which does not exist. the person who rebuilds the temple will be the messiah, not the anti-christ, and animal sacrifices will no longer be required.
basically, you just mixed up "the second coming of christ" with "the antichrist." you should really work on that, figure out which side you're on. because the "jews are evil" side just makes you look bad.
curiously, only the bible records any of this.
My ppoint, exactly, if it was a star in the sense of a distant sun, others would have seen it. Thanks for that.
er, no, astrologers would have seen it. less astrologically inclined people wouldn't. people who didn't care about israel or had different astrology wouldn't have cared about the israel connection. the hindus actually kept amazingly accurate stellar records around that time, and noted a number of interesting events in the sky.
equally curious is that only one gospel records it. luke does not.
it sure makes him smaller than a god who moves stars.
Not if you think about it. Not only is He all in all, and the Great Spirit that is in everything, and set the stars in the heavens, He also does it from a starship, at least sometimes. And He is soon coming right here forever to land and live, and base His trips from!! Evermore.
i am not sure why you think anyone would see your point as anything other than pure and unadulterated lunacy. even ray martinez called you a crackpot. do you have any appreciation for what that means on the internet? it's like peter popoff calling you a fraud.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 10-27-2007 9:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by simple, posted 10-28-2007 12:40 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 273 of 278 (430865)
10-27-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Vacate
10-27-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Slime
I am done. You win. I will not take part in this debate any longer. All attempts to make my point have been avoided by your twisting of your story, denying claims you have made, and outright lies about my position. Until I get a retraction and apology from you about this repeated slander I am done. Take your victory, I hope you enjoy it.
don't let him get to you too much. i don't think he's doing it on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Vacate, posted 10-27-2007 11:30 PM Vacate has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 275 of 278 (430880)
10-28-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by simple
10-28-2007 12:40 AM


let's stone simple.
both your premise and your conclusion are faulty. a god who writes in cryptic tomes such that only the select few, or this case, the select one can understand it, is a god of lies. you are painting god to be a liar, someone who says one thing but means another.
Complete nonsense, of course. In the extreme. He gave us the choice to select Him. And His spirit, as a consequence. He made it crystal clear, and simple, in the bible that we could understand, but we NEED his spirit, and help.
then why doesn't anyone else who believes in him see this nonsense you are coming up with? you are just using this an excuse to perpetuate your imaginative misinterpretations. it's not god, or the holy spirit, it's you, simple. it's all you -- and for you to bring up this sort of crap about it being god implies that nobody else besides you has the spirit of god. you are claiming to be a prophet, and you are a false one. the bible says to stone you.
and yes, ray martinez uses the same excuse for his nonsense, too. and even he thought you were silly for talking about god's spaceship.
It is not God lying,
no. it isn't. it is you making god out to be a liar, be claiming he wrote one thing, but meant another. the bible says to stone you.
by any natural only minded stretch of the imagination, when He says we need, repeat need, repeat need, repeat need, repeat need, emphasis on need, repeat need to have His spirit, to comprehend.
god gave us all brains. i'm sorry that you do not feel the need to actually use yours. what the bible says of one needing faith to understand is not a matter of coded messages. it's a matter of the bible speaking of many spiritual truths, philosophical matters, that one might not easily understand without a point of reference. it is not a blank check to interpret any passage you like as being about UFOs and claim it as divine inspiration on your part. you are claiming to be a prophet, and you are false. the bible says to stone you.
That is something you need to get a handle on pronto. Before you can, repeat can proceed any further. That is how it is. Need I repeat myself here????
that is all you have ever done. like a heathen, who thinks his prayers will be heard for his much speaking.
So, the spiritual importance of it, means what??? Does it mean that it was written by a spirit, and needs a spirit to unlock it's mysteries?? Or do you use 'spiritual' as some mentally conjured, 'in the head only', bible is a pack of nonsense' way?? Do tell.
if by "mentally conjured, in the head only, bible is a pack of nonsense" way you mean like you have been doing for this entire thread, no. i do not treat the bible that way. you do. the bible is written in rather black and white hebrew and greek. depending on your translation, it's in fairly clear english. you have to read it for what is on the page first, and meaning is extracted from there on different levels. and much of the spiritual truths in the bible are written rather directly.
again, you are essentially saying that god's presence among the israelites (at times like the exodus) was "physical only." who is neutering the spiritual content of the bible now? you are. why do you suppose that people who are literally following god through the barren wilderness, relying on him for their very daily bread, would be lacking anything spiritually from god?
That is the anti thesis of what I ever suggested. The murmuring Jews in the desert were lacking plenty, obviously. Otherwise some of them would have made it to the promised land! Focus.
with every post you write, i am further convinced that you know nothing about the bible, and are not qualified to utter a single word about it. the "murmuring jews in the desert" conquered the promised land in the book of joshua. yes, after some 40 years of wandering -- but if you hadn't noticed (and i am sure that you have not), the running theme of the old testament is "man betrays god." god can be right there in the garden, and man betrays him. and yes, before any imagined "fall" man was fully capable of betraying god the second he left them alone for even an instant.
If they had not belly ached about the manna, and worshiped golden calves, while the cat, Moses, was away, and etc... maybe you could say they had 'arrived' spiritually. No. They were a mess.
tell me simple, since you are the only saved person here, blessed with the spirit of god and all the knowledge and righteousness that includes -- do you still sin? come back and try to argue this point when you're perfect in every way. because implying as such just adds to your claim to being false prophet, perfect in the ways of god. the bible says to stone you.
the rest of us, who have read the bible, appreciate it a little more. even if it were nothing more than lies, it would be an incredible historical work filled with philosophical arguments and beautiful poetry
That is as shallow a take on the word of Gos as could be imagined. Poetry, and 'philosophical arguments', that claim a messiah was coming, and came, and that the book was inspired of God, etc would be the most heinous, diabolical hoax ever foisted on mankind.
you apparently do not understand "if" statements. you were claiming that without your special tin-foil-hat understanding of the bible, it would be toilet paper and firewood. this makes it all the more clear that you do not understand the true worth of text, but have yourself been fooled by diabolical hoax. you fail to see even the base value of the text as a work of literature, let alone the historical and religious significance of the text. let alone the part that applies to our lives today. instead, you hunt for UFOs and anything you can scramble to piece together to make up for your appraisal of the text as totally worthless. you detract from the bible, and from god. the bible says to stone you.
and the fact of the matter, god did abandon the children of judah for a time. he says so himself.
Not His office over them. He did hide His face a few times, and allow them to reap the hell they sowed, but He still had His plan, messiah, and office very very, repeat very much intact. This is evidenced by the sacrifice of His son. God had to let Jesus taste what our death was like, the separation for a small moment, from the Father. Perhaps the Father almost hoped that Jesus , His son, would raise His little pinky, call in the angel air strike, and end man's rule??
god wished the destruction of mankind? he promised never to do so again. your ad-hoc storytelling is heresy. the bible says to stone you.
Instead, He had to forsake Jesus, apparently, for a moment. All for you. And you come up with this sort of tripe???
you, who makes up stories about UFOs, accuse the people who quote the bible of making up tripe. you are detracting from the word of god. the bible says to stone you.
there whole books devoted to this kings. there are books whose authorship is attributed to this kings -- in your view, god spoke through these people. your view is utterly disrespectful of the entirety of the bible.
On the contrary, it puts man in his place.
you are using this as an excuse to belittle entire books of the bible. the bible says to stone you.
No, it is a word that symbolizes God's authority, and He is the only one in the bible that ever had a sceptre.
this demonstrably untrue. i quoted in a previous post references to the kings of egypt, babylon, and persia all wielding sceptres as symbols of their power. but you evidently have such a short memory that i will have to post them again.
Now, fill us in, was that a king of ISRAEL, that held that sceptre???? You ought to hang your head in shame.
your point was wrong. the word does not mean "god's UFO." it is a staff that signifies tribal leadership. it does not symbolize god's authority, it symbolizes the authority of a king. when the verse talks about god, it is god's authority as a king. when the verse talks about an earthly king, such as the king of babylon, persia, or egypt, it is the authority of an earthly king. all it means is "authority." whether or not a king of judah actually held a staff is irrelevent, as it is just symbolic of the power bestowed upon him. the power is the point of the verse. not a stick. and certainly not a UFO.
Worldly kings have offices as well. So???? The office over Judah was...class...Who????
david. david was the king of israel, from the house of judah. his son solomon was was the king of israel, from the house of judah. his son rehoboam was king of judah. and so on. the verse in genesis is saying that kings come from judah.
I never said blessing, THAT depends on OBEDIENCE!!! I said office, rule. Get serious.
you said "UFO." you get serious.
i'm sorry, what? jesus took over god's job?
In the world of men, of course!!! Jesus IS the way, the truth, and the light, NO man cometh unto the Father, but by Him. Jesus is the only Christmas star around you can follow now.
sometimes i am surprised that i can even find anything to say to you. it's like talking to someone with alzheimers. the same conversation, over and over, never once stopping to make any sense whatsoever.
no, they were happy it did not disappear.
You make it sound like they were a bunch of silly morons, that jumped up and down, and got a mench in the bible itself, every time a new evening came round. Ridiculous.
you make it sound like they were UFO chasers. and no, they were only happy to see it again once herod proved a false lead.
you're still not getting it. these weren't pizza delivery boys. they were astrologers. why is this so hard to understand? astrologers get information from stars.
OOHH. I see. So, we can tweak the test, and demo, here, to make it real easy for you. Call up some astrology club, and ask them to deliver a telescope to your door. Tell them to follow a star!!! You really must be kidding. That is patently absurd. Get a grip, man.
no, simple. not astronomy. astrology. astrology is like those horoscopes you read in the newspaper, where you find your sign and it tells you about the day you're going to have. except it was a lot less goofy, and more of a serious religion back in the first century AD. it was the practice of looking to the stars to obtain information. persian astrologers associated certain constellations with the jews, and would be the only ones who would have interpretted the stars to mean that a king had been born to the jews.
I was referring to how we Christians are all married to Jesus. I won't get into the good stuff on a non Christian public forum!!
yes, well, have a fun honeymoon. but we don't want to hear your sexual fantasies about jesus.
you're still not reading. just because today we all view the world in a judeo-christian-centric fashion doesn't mean that everyone always did. israel is part of our cultural tradition -- but in the first century AD it wasn't part of anyone's tradition.
So, why pretend that countries sent folks there????? Try and focus.
because it's the only reading that fits.
except persia. do you understand this now? "knowing of" and "caring about" are two very different things. only persia would have cared.
Woulda shoulda coulda. Maybe, smaybe, baby. This is your pretend case support????
do you really have nothing to add? is the entirety of your comment the level of discourse on a grade-school playground? persia had reason to care about israel. nobody else did. magi were persian astrologers. there were two empires in the world at the time, rome, and persia. and they didn't come from rome. look, it's persia. this isn't even a debate. they came from persia.
yes, that magi (persian astrologers) were from persia is making stuff up. but UFOs, that's obvious! come on.
God's wheels are bible basics.
understanding what the word "vision" means is bible basics. go back and re-read ezekiel.
Claiming that all the wise men were living in Iran, regardless of where they were born is dreamland.
not iran. persia. magi are persian astrologers. that means they're from persia. and they're astrologers.
If these Magi never traveled, why were they in Jerusalem???
because they were sent there. are you really following the story this badly?
Are you suggesting that ALL who used the silk road, or ships always came back to their countries every time?? If not, then, assuming the Magi are as you think, how is it they were hogtied to Iran?? Why not have one in China, or India??
because you're making stuff up. you have no reason to assume that persian astrologers came from anywhere other than persia.
you're talking about UFOs. don't forget that. you're also talking about spiritualistic nonsense that runs contrary to what the word of god says. the bible says to stone you, as you are a false prophet advocating that we follow other gods.
Other Gods like the messiah??? Like the Ancient of Days?? Your violent fantasies are noted.
other gods like "not the one of the bible." the one that zips around in a flying saucer. the bible says to stone you.
You seriously suggest here, that the legions sent to punish the rebellious Jews, were all from Israel?? Absurd.
no. i'm suggesting that israel was already occupied by the romans. try to pay attention.
under deuteronomical law, sacrifices can only be performed at the temple. which does not exist. the person who rebuilds the temple will be the messiah, not the anti-christ, and animal sacrifices will no longer be required.
We shall see. I can tell you one thing, Jesus ain't building no temple in old Jerusalem
new jerusalem. i did not think i had to spell out the book of revelation for you.
All you are saying, is that many Jews will embrace the AntiChrist as the messiah!!!! This is news????
no. i am saying that you are an anti-semite, and should be completely ashamed of yourself. the jewish expectations for the messiah are directly related to (and probably the basis of) the second coming of christ. compare your "jesus is a space alien" prophecy about the messiah from daniel to the book of revelation.
You seem to claim here that the Hindus recorded the Christmas star. Prove it.
no, i claim that they recorded everything. there are at least a half dozen (astrological!) events in the night sky around the time of the birth of christ, recorded by the hindus. feel free to do some research and find some. one in particular was even recorded on a roman coin, pictured at the beginning of this thread. you want an explanation, you find it, but i am not putting my support behind any one rationalization. they are all better than "UFO!"
i am not sure why you think anyone would see your point as anything other than pure and unadulterated lunacy. even ray martinez called you a crackpot. do you have any appreciation for what that means on the internet? it's like peter popoff calling you a fraud.
Never heard of the silly guy. If he wants my notice, he can say it himself, and see how far he gets.
http://EvC Forum: The "Circle of the Earth" -->EvC Forum: The "Circle of the Earth"
i would be more than happy to see you two crackpots fight it out over who's loonier. enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by simple, posted 10-28-2007 12:40 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by simple, posted 10-29-2007 2:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 277 of 278 (431077)
10-29-2007 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by simple
10-29-2007 2:42 AM


bow before simple's immense ego
Well, never heard of this ray
then you haven't been paying attention. he's rather well known all over the internet, especially here and talk.origins, as the resident crank.
and your prophet gibberish is insanity.
er, no, your claims that are tantamount to claiming that you are a prophet, the only true messenger of god's holy word about UFOs, are insanity. that's kind of the point. claiming special knowledge, imparted to you by the heavens, that those with a more rational grounding in reality are not privy to... well, that's actually one of the definitions of "schizophrenia." it's a mental disorder.
The bible basics of God's wheels, and such, are just something that seem to rub your unbelieving natural take on things the wrong way. Tough. Let me assure you, your threats of stoning me are met with humor. If you met me, you would call me sir. I kid you not.
they're not threats. they are reminders that what you are doing is the antithesis of what the bible teaches -- and walking around commanding respect (i would call you sir?) is the primary symptom of this problem.
OK, so you are welcome to your opinion. I, as anyone here that can read would likely notice, make out God and the bible to be true, unlike you.
actually, as anyone who can read already has noticed, and pointed out to you on multiple occasions, you turn the bible into a laughing stock. your claims of it being true are somewhat irrelevent -- you make it look silly in other ways. and as everyone has surely noticed, your reading ability is rather sub-par. after all, you began this discussion with a rather obvious misrepresentation of a quote ripped out of context. no one with a modicum of reading ability would ever have thought that the verse in question means what you think it does. and nearly 300 posts of corrections later you still refuse to admit that you made a mistake, and misunderstood something pretty basic. what an ego, you must have. "sir" indeed.
frankly, you're having problems reading verses in english translation that i can read in the original. i'll call you "sir" when you can step up to even the most basic standard of biblical exegesis. scratch that, i'll call you "sir" when you can understand the basic literal meaning of a text. that pretty much means "reading it." i'm not even asking for study -- certainly not the level of study i have put, let alone the level of study that other members like doctorbill have committed to. i'm asking you to read it, stop making shit up, and comprehend basically what it says. when you've mastered that grade-school skill, i'll call you "sir."
the running theme of the old testament is "man betrays god." god can be right there in the garden, and man betrays him. and yes, before any imagined "fall" man was fully capable of betraying god the second he left them alone for even an instant.
No. No idea what you are prattling on about. You are welcome to your opinion.
yes, i am evidently talking over your head. to come to that sort of consensus would require reading, carefully, the books of genesis, exodus, numbers, judges, samuel, kings, isaiah, jeremiah... and actually understanding the basic plot elements, themes, and being able to actually construct connections by logical induction. that sort of thing is way over the head of someone who claims "divine knowledge" has provided them with their silly excuses for exegesis. no, the bible itself is not good enough for you.
tell me simple, since you are the only saved person here, blessed with the spirit of god and all the knowledge and righteousness that includes -- do you still sin? come back and try to argue this point when you're perfect in every way. because implying as such just adds to your claim to being false prophet, perfect in the ways of god. the bible says to stone you.
Heaven is full of sinners. So??
so, before you walk around throwing stones at the very people who you claim the spirit chose to record his words, perhaps you should think twice. remember, with the standard you judge others, so will you be judged. if you claim that spirit of god was not with the people he led through the desert, because they sinned, the same standard will be applied to you. because you are a sinner, the spirit of god must not be with you, either. meaning that you are just as unsaved as the jews you were talking about -- nevermind the bit about your specially imparted divine understanding being totally fictituous without the presence of the spirit. but i'm sure i'm talking past you, again.
Stop blathering.
no, simple, the only one blathering is you. you would not know sense or reason if it ran you over while you were trying to cross the street.
If the bible is the pack of fairy tales you make it out to be, any real man ought to have the kahonies to toss the garbage out. God is either God, or He isn't. Stand up, man.
that's just the problem here, simple. you are the one making the bible out to be fairy tales with your UFO nonsense. that is why i'm arguing against you -- because you turn the bible into something ridiculous. and because you so plainly consider it worthless, as this post demonstrates yet again. even if the bible were only 100% fairy tales, it's still a very good and very useful book. even atheists value the text more than you do. and to hold such a, well, simple view of the text is just completely ignorant of its contents. much of it has nothing to do with historical matters, or events, but with the contents of the soul -- it is full of poetry, prophecy, cultural proverbs, philosophy. none of this could even be remotely described as "fairy tales" because they're not tales of any kind.
god wished the destruction of mankind? he promised never to do so again. your ad-hoc storytelling is heresy. the bible says to stone you.
Prove it. He simply said that He would not do it with water again. The angels at the ready, watching day and night for Jesus to give the signal, and raise that baby finger were not going to come down with water pistols. Get serious. And come down to end this world they would have.
no, simple, let's approach it like this. for every story that you invent on the spot, you have to prove it. the person making the claim provides the documentation, not the person that says "you made that up." otherwise, we try it your way, and i'll start claiming that god rides an invisible pink unicorn. the authors of the bible didn't think to mention it because they couldn't see it, being invisible. bullshit, you say? prove it. prove i made that up, and the holy spirit didn't tell me so.
that's essentially the weight of your claim. it's not my job to prove that every idiotic new story you weave is simply your own invention. you have to document where it came from. if not, the default assumption is that you made it up. no? you prove it.
Yes. The followed a UFO, and Herod had no clue. So??
you still have not proposed a good reason why people a thousand miles away saw a UFO in the east, went west, and then followed it to a house without anyone else noticing.
your point was wrong. the word does not mean "god's UFO." it is a staff that signifies tribal leadership. it does not symbolize god's authority, it symbolizes the authority of a king.
False. like the king that held the sceptre you posted, and never admitted was not from Israel. The sceptre was the office of God, and that included kings. But was not limited to them, therefore YOUR claims that God's word is false are exposed as a fraud.
look, you evidently have no interest in actually reading the bible for what's on the page. you just want to make up stuff in your head. that's fine, but keep it in your head, and stop thinking that by simply writing "false" and repeating your nonsense that you have an argument. you obviously do not understand basic concepts of relatively mundane symbolism.
You prance around here and many seem to think you are the resident bible expert. Let's hope they see through that lie now. You are a natural only minded rip off.
i am no expert, but i am a good deal more educated in the matter than you are. if you disagree -- ask the holy spirit what my signature means. i'll give you a hint: it's in the bible.
you are using this as an excuse to belittle entire books of the bible. the bible says to stone you.
Not in any way at all is that true. I believe the bible, you cast it to the ground, and stomp on it as a filthy lie. I am onto you.
simple, i remind you, you were just speaking poorly of king david (the psalmist) and king solomon (song of songs) and referred the books of kings and ezra as the faulty records of "christ killers." when confronted with the fact that your claims are utterly absent from (and even contradicted by) the bible, you choose to talk about how poor the inspiration must have been, that god did not make these matters clear in writting. you belittle the bible, and everyone reading this has noticed.
i do not cast it to the ground, nor have i claimed it was a lie. i claimed your claims about it were lies. there is a difference. the bible is not the word of simple. i debate you out of respect for the bible, a set of texts that you very fundamentally abuse and misuse. and you claimed repeatedly that without your special understanding, this text would be toilet paper and fire kindling. those are your claims, not mine. even if i did think it were lies, i would hold it in much higher regard than you do as truth.
no, simple. not astronomy. astrology. astrology is like those horoscopes you read in the newspaper, where you find your sign and it tells you about the day you're going to have. except it was a lot less goofy, and more of a serious religion back in the first century AD. it was the practice of looking to the stars to obtain information. persian astrologers associated certain constellations with the jews, and would be the only ones who would have interpretted the stars to mean that a king had been born to the jews.
Fine. I am going to be lenient on you, and go the extra mile here for you. I will make it real easy. Just call your newspaper astrologer, and ask him or her to find your house, just give them your birth date. Face the facts, man, that can not guide them to your city, or town, and very house. Say uncle.
what you are asking for is a miracle. i'm not saying that as a complaint, but because you evidently do not realize this very basic fact. the christmas star was a miracle. you are trying to propose a more naturalized explanation for a miracle. do you get that yet? it's the bloody title of this thread, "christmas star explained." you don't explain miracles. that's kind of the point -- they can't be. by trying to do so, you are robbing the text of its meaning and impact. you, mr. "spiritual minded" are taking away the spiritual aspect with your goofy UFO explanation. to say it was a LIE would have better than what you do. and to demand duplication of a miracle is testing god, which is silly in the extreme. might i also part the red sea? slaughter every firstborn in egypt? raise lazarus from the dead (again)?
Stop fantasizing. The bible doesn't say countries sent the wise men. That is bull.
yes, placing persian astrologers in persia is a fantasy. but UFOs, that's for reals!
Prove that they were Iranian, and came from there. You are pathetically lacking in the slightest proof, or bible for your la la dreams.
look, i've broken this down for you as simple as i can. you're just going to have to try harder to figure out why persian astrologers come from persia.
understanding what the word "vision" means is bible basics. go back and re-read ezekiel.
If I see something, I use vision. So??? Zeke saw the wheels and throne of God.
ok, let's start here. let's look at another one of ezekiel's visions.
quote:
The hand of the LORD was upon me, and the LORD carried me out in a spirit, and set me down in the midst of the valley, and it was full of bones; and He caused me to pass by them round about, and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And He said unto me: 'Son of man, can these bones live?' And I answered: 'O Lord GOD, Thou knowest.' Then He said unto me: 'Prophesy over these bones, and say unto them: O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.' So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a commotion, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I beheld, and, lo, there were sinews upon them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said He unto me: 'Prophesy unto the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.' So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great host.
Ezekiel 37:1-10
where was this field of bones? when was it? why the bones? who did they belong to? the problem you will have is that this is a vision. it's symbolic. read on the following verses. the bones symbolize the house of israel, and their return from exile -- they're not real physical objects, or real physical people. it's a strong image given by god to the prophet to make him understand what is to come.
visions are symbolic visual representations. they are like the dreams that joseph analyzed for his captors and for pharoah. they're like jesus's parables.
Now, if you want to claim that was a vision of another time, well, I can allow that. Maybe he saw the Christmas star long before it came???
you have no reason to connect these two texts, nor have you shown any argument as for why they should be connected. except that in your mind every shiny object is the same thing -- a UFO.
yes, well, have a fun honeymoon. but we don't want to hear your sexual fantasies about jesus.
He has His gals, I have mine. We are not queer, if that is your insinuation. Neither was Mary.
hey, you implied it, not me.
Oh, so the temple is in New Jerusalem???
Re 21:22 - And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Now, the word temple is also used in Revelations, about heaven, but, according to this commentary, not the temple you refer to.
"and serve him day and night in his temple;
not in any material temple, but in the new Jerusalem, the general assembly and church of the firstborn, the temple of the living God; for in this state there will be no material temple, or place of worship, but God and the Lamb will be the temple thereof, (Revelation 21:22) ;"
yes, simple.
quote:
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Any English translation of this claim??? Jews await the second coming now, according to you????
the jewish expectations of the messiah and the christian expectations of the second coming are quite similar. one is, in fact, based on the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by simple, posted 10-29-2007 2:42 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by simple, posted 10-29-2007 4:40 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024