Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christmas Star Explained
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 278 (429866)
10-22-2007 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Jaderis
10-22-2007 3:36 AM


Re: Shekiniah Glory Starship Sceptre!
So the "new heaven" that is different from the old heaven from the Babel story is not quite ready yet? It is just being "prepared?"
How does that help your previous claims? Not at all, I imagine.
I don't know of any claims that need help. But, no, New Jerusalem is ready!!! Folks are already there. It's good to go. How is it different from the spiritual level of Babel??? It has people living in it, for one thing. At least their spirits.
But you KNOW that the heaven of Babel was SOOOOO close and PHYSICAL and GOD took it away (how soon after the flood?? and why??)
About 101 years after the flood. Why? I don't know, I think it had something to do with the wickedness of man. We were too wicked to live a thousand years. The flood was evidence of that. A universe change was needed, separating the spiritual from the physical. Maybe there were other reasons as well, like keeping some of the spirits separate, for their benefit.
P.S. I think "don't really know" comes from not having answers from your pet website. Read the fucking bible. Read the fucking bible. In context and then read this thread again and research and then read the fucking bible again and rinse and repeat.
Your answers might still be there. Who knows?
If you think you have a bible case present it. From the sounds of it, that is highly unlikely. If you think we should know all things about the spiritual, precisely, you are silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Jaderis, posted 10-22-2007 3:36 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 212 of 278 (429896)
10-22-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Vacate
10-21-2007 9:09 AM


Re: Don't worry, its Simple
I mean speculation that heaven was closer to earth before Christ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Vacate, posted 10-21-2007 9:09 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 5:35 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 213 of 278 (429901)
10-22-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by simple
10-22-2007 2:36 AM


Re: Inexpressible Brilliance
simple writes:
How did a star guide men to a house???
That's the least important part of the story. Herod sent them directly to Bethlehem and everybody there had already heard the shepherds' news. How hard could it be to find the house that everybody was talking about?
"They followed a star" is a figure of speech like "they followed their hearts".

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 2:36 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 5:44 PM ringo has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 214 of 278 (429905)
10-22-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by simple
10-22-2007 2:53 AM


Re: Shekiniah Glory Starship Sceptre!
4400 years ago is not something I have changed in years as a timing point. Must be your attention, and comprehension shortfall there.
Excuse me? Read it again:
Vacate writes:
So they couldn't walk into heaven now? Your position changes so fast I can't keep track of it.
My attention is fine and my comprehension is fine. How is it that in reading what I wrote you assumed that I was unaware of the timeframe in question. I was referring to Babel, not "now". I said "now" because "now" it seems that you are saying Heaven in the time of Babel is no longer physical in such a way that the people of that time could not ascend to it. Is that clear? Do you understand?
You see you never did answer my question and hence it appears you are backing away from your previous stance that the people of that time could in fact reach Heaven by building a tower. I had thought the issue was settled but it no longer appears that way.
quote:
Thanks for not answering the question
You are welcome
You call this a debate?
Of course He did not ascend to New Jerusalem, if He prepared the city for us.
I never said he did. Do not attempt to twist my words - I will just quote them again. Here you are:
Vacate from message 192 writes:
This is the "abode" that I am curious about. This one that Jesus ascended to after "taking great lengths to prove he was still human". This place was obviously not removed/altered/transported during the time of Peleg.
Notice that I never said I was curious about "New Jerusalem"? I inquired about the place that Jesus ascended to before he created "New Jerusalem". Now that you cannot avoid the place that I am talking about (the Heaven that Jesus ascended to before creating New Jerusalem) can you finally answer the questions I had about this location?
How high up was this place? Is it still there? When did it become non-physical? (or alternately - when did it change to become a place that pilots cannot ascend to) What is this place? (Unless you wish to provide an alternate I would choose to use Heaven V2 from this point on)
You may not be as clear as you think you are.
Yes I was, I inquired about the Heaven that Jesus ascended to, I did not inquire about Babel Heaven nor New Jerusalem.
Jesus was physical and spiritual, or merged, which is the eternal state. It has qualities of both!
Good. Given that you are adverse to calling any of your versions of Heaven "Physical" I suggest semi-solid or some variation. The important point being that these semi-solid Heavens differ from New Jerusalem in that people could possibly build a tower to them or fly space craft to them. New Jerusalem is unlike Babel Heaven and Heaven V2 because it was never semi-solid.
If you don't like the names that is fine, but to provide some semblance of clarity I must insist that you either accept these names or provide alternatives that you will use for the duration of this debate.
Then consider them asked now. What is your take on the bible, God, and the Christmas star??
My beliefs are off topic in this thread. You have made many attempts to goad me into this line of discussion but I will not take the bait. I have explained in detail why my beliefs are unimportant for this discussion if you are unable to understand this I am at a loss to resolve the issue. Feel free to create a new thread directed at what my beliefs are, but my participation is unlikely.
I think there was a starship. I know you have no science or evidence otherwise. Game over.
I know you have no science or evidence to show that there was no bluish purple frogs. Stalemate.
Nonsense. The tower may have allowed them to live forever, upon reaching the spiritual level. Why else would they be so gung ho to do it??
So the issue is settled?
Nothing contradictory about a spiritual level at the time of Babel.
I did not say it was. You are once again trying to twist my words, this time in an attempt to portray me as confused! I said : "The problem is that you never answer any question that provides a concise answer that you don't appear to contradict sometimes within the same reply". Its YOUR STORY, I am only asking for clarity that you refuse to provide.
The spinning of wheels only exists in your head. Work on that.
Show me the quotes. Show me where I am displaying confusion that you have not deliberately forced upon me by refusing to answer questions, asking me to answer my own questions, attempting to change my words to avoid answering questions, and introducing elements that do not even relate to the questions I have asked. (I will provide evidence of all these accusations if you wish)
So you offer that as your case. OK. Noted.
About damn time. Flash cards too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 2:53 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 6:43 PM Vacate has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 278 (429944)
10-22-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by bluescat48
10-22-2007 9:56 AM


Re: Don't worry, its Simple
Actually, that would be bible. The building of a tower to heaven, and intermingling of angels, and other differences were documented in the bible.
Questioning it is opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by bluescat48, posted 10-22-2007 9:56 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2007 9:35 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 278 (429945)
10-22-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
10-22-2007 10:29 AM


Demolition of a Case.
Absurd. It doesn't say followed a star, so applying a silly modern meaning to that is doubly unfitting!
It says, that the star 'WENT before' them!
And before, in the greek means, primarily this.
1. to lead forward, lead forth
Interlinear Search for '' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org
The followed a guide, in other words, that moved. Right to the house, no less. You can't get a star today to do that by any contorted imaginings. Your case is crushed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 10-22-2007 10:29 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 10-22-2007 6:03 PM simple has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 217 of 278 (429946)
10-22-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by simple
10-22-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Demolition of a Case.
simple writes:
It says, that the star 'WENT before' them!
And before, in the greek means, primarily this.
1. to lead forward, lead forth
Just like saying, "their hearts led them". Figurative.
You can't get a star today to do that by any contorted imaginings.
The star didn't need to "do" anything. They saw the star months before, in their homeland. If the star had been "leading" them, they wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem at all.
Herod sent them to Bethlehem, so they didn't need the star to "lead" them there, either. "Following the star" to Bethlehem is just story-telling. It serves no other purpose.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 5:44 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 7:06 PM ringo has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 278 (429950)
10-22-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Vacate
10-22-2007 10:49 AM


In this corner..
My attention is fine and my comprehension is fine. How is it that in reading what I wrote you assumed that I was unaware of the timeframe in question. I was referring to Babel, not "now". I said "now" because "now" it seems that you are saying Heaven in the time of Babel is no longer physical in such a way that the people of that time could not ascend to it. Is that clear? Do you understand?
You see you never did answer my question and hence it appears you are backing away from your previous stance that the people of that time could in fact reach Heaven by building a tower. I had thought the issue was settled but it no longer appears that way.
Let's be clear here, it depends on if you are talking about the first ting or the second ting.
The spiritual was close at hand before Babel. It was not in the present state, including the time of Jesus.
Just because the spiritual level was near, and could have been ascended to before Babel, does not make it physical. The physical bits would be the bodies and tower getting up to it. Once there, they would have encountered a spiritual level. That means that they would have had spiritual and physical together, and apparently that means, possibly they would have lived forever. get it?? It doesn't mean the spiritual level was physical. The spiritual is spiritual, and the physical is physical, and not till the new heavens will they meet. Then it will be eternal state.
If all that is too tough to chew on, just remember that the physical is not spiritual.
I never said he did. Do not attempt to twist my words - I will just quote them again. Here you are:
Vacate from message 192 writes:
This is the "abode" that I am curious about. This one that Jesus ascended to after "taking great lengths to prove he was still human". This place was obviously not removed/altered/transported during the time of Peleg.
Notice that I never said I was curious about "New Jerusalem"? I inquired about the place that Jesus ascended to before he created "New Jerusalem". Now that you cannot avoid the place that I am talking about (the Heaven that Jesus ascended to before creating New Jerusalem) can you finally answer the questions I had about this location?
Yes, it is beyond the realm of this physical only present state of man. A place where God's good spirits live. Not a place man could get to now at all. He went there, with the Father. It was while there, that He prepared New Jerusalem. Now, let's not pretend your questions were answered any more.
Do you believe in spirits??
Yes I was, I inquired about the Heaven that Jesus ascended to, I did not inquire about Babel Heaven nor New Jerusalem.
As clearly explained, it was not the spiritual level of the time of Babel, near earth. It was the other ting.
Good. Given that you are adverse to calling any of your versions of Heaven "Physical" I suggest semi-solid or some variation. The important point being that these semi-solid Heavens differ from New Jerusalem in that people could possibly build a tower to them or fly space craft to them. New Jerusalem is unlike Babel Heaven and Heaven V2 because it was never semi-solid.
Both are a place for spirits. Jesus was physical, and spiritual after He arose, so obviously His city accommodates that. After all, there are departed spirits from here living there as we speak. So, it can house merged or spiritual only, either one.
We will come back to earth, for the resurrection of our physical bodies, at the rapture. The dead believers shall rise first. Then, those that are alive will rise up physically, and get their eternal merged bodies.
The angels also had to have had some sort of bodies to marry women of earth at the time of Babel.
So, for the intents and purposes of this thread, we can consider the merged as spiritual as well. Because it does consist of the spiritual as part of it's make up.
As for a detailed study of what may or not have been only spiritual, that is off topic, and irrelevant.
What is relevant is that this spiritual is now separate from the physical only world of man! And has been for a long long time. The Starship Sceptre didn't have to worry about some spiritual level over Bethlehem, relax.
My beliefs are off topic in this thread. You have made many attempts to goad me into this line of discussion but I will not take the bait. I have explained in detail why my beliefs are unimportant for this discussion if you are unable to understand this I am at a loss to resolve the issue. Feel free to create a new thread directed at what my beliefs are, but my participation is unlikely.
No, they are on topic, because it involves a bible case, and your beliefs come into play. Or lack thereof.
I know you have no science or evidence to show that there was no bluish purple frogs. Stalemate.
I don't claim to have science, only to meet the evidence, which your fantasy doesn't do. It fails to meet history. It was not observed. It also is not biblical, and the star of Bethlehem is a bible documented thing. On all fronts, your frog fantasy flops. Checkmate.
Show me the quotes. Show me where I am displaying confusion that you have not deliberately forced upon me by refusing to answer questions, asking me to answer my own questions, attempting to change my words to avoid answering questions, and introducing elements that do not even relate to the questions I have asked. (I will provide evidence of all these accusations if you wish)
This paragraph of yours seems to do fine on that score. It is gibberish. You accuse me of not answering questions??? Absurd. If you want someone to relate to what you ask, stop mumbling, and hiding you true beliefs on the topic, and read the plethora of answers I gave, despite your childish behavior.
About damn time. Flash cards too?
No thanks, I don't need froggy flash cards to note a demented fantasy. I think all readers can get a handle on your little statement of faith. Thanks for that. Nice to see what I am up against in the way of well founded opposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Vacate, posted 10-22-2007 10:49 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by arachnophilia, posted 10-22-2007 7:22 PM simple has replied
 Message 225 by Vacate, posted 10-22-2007 9:07 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 278 (429951)
10-22-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ringo
10-22-2007 6:03 PM


Re: Demolition of a Case.
Just like saying, "their hearts led them". Figurative.
Inapplicable Shakespearean drivel. You are trying to explain away the obvious meaning and content of a story. That is like saying the king was really a spider, and the wise men were the three blind mice, and the palace was the wall Humpty sat on. They all sang a chorus of twinkle twinkle Christmas star, how I wonder where you are.
The star didn't need to "do" anything. They saw the star months before, in their homeland. If the star had been "leading" them, they wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem at all.
So now the star was seen months before. We are making progress here, almost near the two year level. We assume they were in their homeland. How do you know that??? Could one of them have been traveling, and still have seen the star, and had to go back to his jomeland first??? We don't know. Why say it like you know??
The star led them from the palace at Jerusalem. It WENT before theme, and brought them to a house. That is leading if ever there was leading. We could deliver a pizza with that kind of bang on accurate leading.
You can't deliver a pizza with the big dipper!! Admit it.
Herod sent them to Bethlehem, so they didn't need the star to "lead" them there, either. "Following the star" to Bethlehem is just story-telling. It serves no other purpose.
The ignorant, just heard the news, asleep at the wheel, out of the loop Herod sent them on the strength of an old prophesy. A prophesy that was already fulfilled, according to the bible time frame, because Jesus fled to Egypt right after the wise men visited the house, (likely in Nazareth), because there was no time to do the things as they were fleeing by night, for their lives.
To top it off, the starship kicked into gear just at that leaving the palace moment, and went before them to the very house. Herod's silly directions are as irrelevant as his devious and dastardly diabolical designs to destroy the dear Deliverer. It was time to move over, Rover, and let the starship of the Almighty take over guiding the wise men to where Jesus actually was!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 10-22-2007 6:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 10-22-2007 7:18 PM simple has replied
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 10-22-2007 7:52 PM simple has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 220 of 278 (429952)
10-22-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by simple
10-22-2007 7:06 PM


more projection
You are trying to explain away the obvious meaning and content of a story. That is like saying the king was really a spider, and the wise men were the three blind mice, and the palace was the wall Humpty sat on. They all sang a chorus of twinkle twinkle Christmas star, how I wonder where you are.
...or that it was really a close encounter with a UFO. i couldn't make up a more clear case of projection -- how can you accuse anyone else of making up silly and childish stories to explain away the meaning of the story, when you yourself have started a thread called "christmas star explained" where you explain it as a UFO?
come on. really now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 7:06 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 12:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 221 of 278 (429953)
10-22-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by simple
10-22-2007 6:43 PM


just what is a "ting" anyways?
Let's be clear here, it depends on if you are talking about the first ting or the second ting.
you keep using that word. what on earth do you mean? wikipedia lists:
  • The sound a bell makes.
  • Thing (assembly), a historical Scandinavian governing assembly.
  • Ting (administrative unit), an administrative unit in the Qin and Han dynasties in China, 10x10 li in area.
  • Ting (soft drink), a carbonated grapefruit beverage popular in the Caribbean.
  • Ting (vessel), the ancient Chinese vessel.
  • A surname of southern Chinese origin.
  • "Thing(s)" in some Caribbean dialects (e.g. "I'd like to buy that ting over there").
  • Slang in the trading card game Magic: The Gathering for a lucky draw.
  • Ting (phone service), a cellular phone service marketed by the South Korean firm SK Telecom.
  • Ting, Afghanistan.
  • "There Is No God", an antitheist phrase.
and "see also:"
  • Thing
please elaborate on just why you keep using this word, what you are referring to, and what it means in this particular context of "first and second tings."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 6:43 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 2:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 222 of 278 (429964)
10-22-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by simple
10-22-2007 7:06 PM


Re: Demolition of a Case.
simple writes:
You are trying to explain away the obvious meaning and content of a story.
I'm giving a consistent, logical alternative to your scenario. If you have a rebuttal, please present it and spare us your empty repetitions of incredulity.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 7:06 PM simple has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 223 of 278 (429966)
10-22-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by simple
10-22-2007 4:18 AM


what isn't a UFO?
like i said, you just go right on making stuff up. first, it doesn't apply to god in that verse. it applies to judah. it's HIS rule jacob is talking about. second, not every shiny object is the same thing.
Your opinion.
not just my opinion. your source agrees:
quote:
it rather signifies dominion, power, and authority, as the sceptre always does, it being an emblem of it, see (Numbers 24:17) (Zechariah 10:11) and this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe, which commenced as soon as it became a tribe, and lasted as long as it remained one, even unto the times of the Messiah; or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of, "
Genesis 49 - Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
remember now, this is god talking to david. not vice versa. it's david's kingdom, and david's throne, granted to him by god. or does david have a spaceship too?
David died remember. The ultimate fulfillment comes from the Messiah, that came from David. David did depart before Shiloh go here!
yes, david died. do you fail to understand what a "house" is? "house of david" was a traditional way that prophets like isaiah adressed the king. because a "house" is a family, and the family of david was royal. david's son solomon sat on david's throne. solomon's son rehoboam sat on david's throne. get it? this verse is talking about government. just the same as the judah verse. not UFOs.
David never had a sceptre!
again, here is the verse:
quote:
2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
there is nothing about a sceptre there. just a throne -- david's throne. this verse, however, is the same meaning as the verse about judah:
quote:
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
judah will rule, forever. your source, above, agrees on the symbolic meaning of "sceptre." israel did not literally give judah a staff, but he is figuratively talking about government. here's your source, again:
quote:
this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe... or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of
David did not look down on Shiloh from afar
no, he didn't. he saw the city of shiloh close up and personal, when he brought the ark of the covenant from there to jerusalem.
No sense pretending yours is the only opinion. there is a lot of opinions.
mine is not an opinion. mine is what the text says. and your opinion is one that runs contrary to that, and is disagreed with by the very sources you cite. the completely honest truth of the situation is that nearly everyone who read the text comes down somewhere close to my reading of it, except for you. you go and tilt at windmills, pretending they're giants.
I know the ark is in heaven. If they "find" "the" ark, it is a fake. If it carbon dates to the right time, it is because it is the replica. You know no different.
see, that's the thing. no amount of evidence will ever convince you. not even the bible will convince you. you have the ad-hoc arguments prepared well in advance for everything. the bits about the ark being in heaven -- you made that up. nobody know where it is, if it even exists today.
and what's a physical object doing in a solely spiritual "place" anyways? remember, simple, this is your explanation. heaven is no longer a physical place that can be reached by things that are purely physical -- like the ark of the covenant. so it can't be there.
that's not what the verse says. the verse says judah would rule until the end of time.
Not at all! It says the sceptre, representing God's rule. will not depart, till Jesus comes. Stop making stuff up.
no, simple, you're the one making stuff up. that "the sceptre" represents god's rule is your assumption, and one, again, contradicted by the very sources you cite. and "jesus" is not mentioned at all. that "shiloh" means the messiah is also your assumption. these are both things that you have pretty clearly invented. and then, on top of that, to interpret it as a UFO from those thing -- well, that's about loony as it comes when it comes to making stuff up.
the text does not say where they went.
It says they went to the house. It never names the city. Way back in Bethlehem, it was a stinking manger. So, we can rule that out.
no, we can't. peasant houses in the first century ad in israel were one and a half story deals. the main floor was raised and made of wood, and the space underneath was used for keeping animals inside during the colder months. during the warmer months (when shepherds slept outside with their flocks), the additional space could be used to house someone overnight if absolutely neccessary. not the greatest living conditions, but this was the barn that jesus was born in.
there was no such thing as a "hotel." guests and travellers were put up for the night in houses. people looking for jesus would have come to a house either way. the text does not say whose house it was.
Not cluck in some barn, in some town she had only went to on short term business. That is as ridiculous as saying a lady gave birth at the airport, and should still be there 2 years later!!! Absurd.
the time frame was not given, either. it simply does not say.
have you READ exodus?
Well I did see the movie ten commandments.
*headdesk*
Now, smoke and "fire" do not need to be the physical kind we think of and know. That is silly. Need proof?? Look at the fire in the bush that burned!!! It was not physical fire!
you just go right on making stuff up, don't you? god was there, in a very strongly literal sense. he led the way through the desert -- and not in a UFO. he let moses see him, and spoke audibly to the congregation. follow this bit, he assisted the israelites in conquering the holy land.
now, when god is very literally among you, and kicking ass left and right, what, exactly, does one require saving from?
you were basically saying that "you can't trust jews" to get the description of the messiah right. nevermind that it's their religion and their definitions. again, you are literally speaking ill of the people who wrote the bible, saying their books are lies. do you not see the issue with this?
Jesus spoke ill of them as well.
jesus spoke ill of the people who wrote the bible? what book are you reading?! it's not the bible, that's for damned for sure. and let's be clear about this.

JESUS WAS A JEW!

your comments are pure ignorance, and are highly offensive.
They were His enemies, and liars, and known to pay great sums to fool people into thinking He never arose. The records of that day can not be trusted. Obviously.
we're not talking about first century records. we're talking about 5th and 6th century BC records of the second temple. we're talking about the bible. you are saying that we cannot trust the bible.
No. I disagree. You never started an ark thread. So too bad, I don't have all night for side issues.
sure you do.
do you really not understand how noah's ark -- a boat -- is a completely different thing than the ark of the covenant -- a box covered in gold and topped by two cherubim, designed to carry the ten commandments, and a few other relic?
The point was that in both arks, He did stuff.
*headdesk*
One time, He had coes cart the ark back to a place. No humans needed. Don't leave God out of the ark picture. Start a thread, or forget it.
no, i have a better one for you. it's totally on topic here, because i'm saying that both arks were the same "ting" because both were really god's UFO. and you can't prove otherwise.
Like I would let you derail a thread, given every opportunity to start an ark thread? No.
the fact is that you brought it up. here, in this thread. now, i'm saying the ark of the covenant was a UFO, and what they really saw in the sky on christmas eve was the ark of the covenant. afterall, jesus was the new covenant, and what better way to establish that than by leading people there with the old one.
you see, i can make up stuff too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 4:18 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 1:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 278 (429969)
10-22-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by simple
10-22-2007 4:53 AM


*sigh* not fired. killed. do you really not understand how being a king worked? you don't fire a king. you depose them. violently. a new king in israel, that wasn't herod's son, meant revolution, rebellion, and a violent coup.
He was a paranoid delusional.
of course he was. in fact, i believe that point is fairly well documented by secular history. i'm not even sure what brought this up anymore -- i stated herod was understandably worried about a "new king" in israel, being the old king. why was this so hard to understand?
Prove it. What info could a star give, that the starship of the Almighty could not??
does god's UFO come with mind-control ray, as well as a cloaking device? cause if it does, i suggest you go get your tinfoil hat. here in the real world "gathering information about the future from the stars" is called "astrology."
The Christmas star was high, and seemed to fly
no, it doesn't say that. it says it led them somewhere.
guiding the wise men.
let's think about this again for just a second. the simply saw the star. a star in the east. that told them to go west. from the star, they gathered that there had been a king born in israel. right? if they knew from the star "israel" guess what? it led them to israel. which, again, is west of persia, and the star was in the east.
He had said already He would see Shiloh from afar off.
that's still not what that verse says.
God is the One recorded in the bible as having the sceptre. Coincidence?
no, "sceptre" is a word that you have abritrarily applied to the merkabah. and clearly the bible describes other kings as having sceptres, as king ahasuerus or persia has one in the book of esther:
quote:
Est 5:2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.
oh, and babylon too:
quote:
Isa 14:4-5 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
and egypt:
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.
it's a symbol of power. jacob addressing his son judah, and granting him the birthright of kings is no exception. when god is described as having a sceptre, it is to portray him as the king by recalling the imagery of an earthly king.
Coincidence? There was a host near the manger, and Ezekiel's wheels, coincidence?
ezekiel's wheels, the merkabah, are not present in either matthew or luke, and are not "a host" which means "a lot." there are only four angels in the merkabah.
You now claim that no UFO can be seen for 1000 miles. Interesting.
no. i claim that a UFO flying about within the earth's atmosphere would be seen by the people directly under it, if it could be seen from 1000 miles away. learn to read.
The space station can be seen from earth. In fact, from it, '''
"The first two modules of the station were launched andjoined in 1998. The first crew arrivedin 2000. Currently, American astronaut Peggy Whitson is on board with Russian cosmonauts Valery Korzun and Sergei Treschev, circling the Earth every 90 minutes at over 17,000 mph. When it is directly overhead, it is about 400 kilometers (250 miles) high."
404
If it was visible say, for four minutes, at 250 miles up, traveling 17,000 miles per hour, would we not see it more than a thousand miles away??
you're not talking about the ISS. you're talking about a UFO that, according to you, came to hover over a house, making it very explicitly certain which house it meant. what i said was that "surely the neighbors would have noticed."
no, simple. i know a lot more about this subject than you do. not just the bible, but UFOs too. you don't know jack, but you keep coming in here with your ridiculous intepretations that plainly defy any rational reading of the text. you're making shit up, proof positive of someone who doesn't know jack.
Then, shouldn't your posts speak for themselves??? I haven't seen that happening. Why is that???
because you don't know jack. you don't know right from wrong, and sense from nonsense. you are deluded in your own ability to make up the TRUTHTM, and wouldn't know which way was up even if someone drew you a map. i'm sorry i can't help you.
considering that astrology was punishable by death in israel, yes. only astrologers from a foreign country would have noticed. and only astrologers from persia would have cared. why persia? read the book of esther -- persia had an israelite queen. the two nations were on good terms.
The nations may have been on good terms, but knowledge was not limited to politics then. The wise men traveled, so it is safe to assume that knowledge could travel as well. You cannpt lock it up in Persia, just because it has a Jewish gal there. Nice try.
*sigh* not "a jewish gal." esther. as in "the book of esther." as in purim, commemorating hadassah of judah, who won the heart of the king of persia as "esther," became queen, and saved her people from genocide at the hands of someone with a tribal blood oath. it's really a good a book, you should read it sometime.
and yes, the text almost certainly means the magi came from persia. persia is the only country that had any reason to care.
i'm suggesting that ezekiel's vision was not of a klingon bird of prey. it was a vision, laden with symbolic meanings and not reality. do you understand the difference?
Yes, you really don't think it flew!!!!!! You really don't think it had God in it up there!!! Or His throne!!!! How about angels, can you manage those??? Or are they fairy tales as well in your books??? I think we are starting to see where you are coming from here.
i think it's a bad idea to confine your notion of god to one way he would physically appear to one of his prophets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 4:53 AM simple has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 225 of 278 (429975)
10-22-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by simple
10-22-2007 6:43 PM


Frogger revisited
Just because the spiritual level was near, and could have been ascended to before Babel, does not make it physical. The physical bits would be the bodies and tower getting up to it. Once there, they would have encountered a spiritual level. That means that they would have had spiritual and physical together, and apparently that means, possibly they would have lived forever. get it??
Perfectly clear, thank you. As I said, I will refer to this as semi-solid and use this quote from now on if the need arises as the definition of this term.
If all that is too tough to chew on, just remember that the physical is not spiritual.
Not at all. You cut to the chase and thats all I have requested since the beginning of this conversation.
Now, let's not pretend your questions were answered any more.
I won't pretend because you did not answer them. Here they are again for the 4th(?) time:
Vacate writes:
How high up was this place? Is it still there? When did it become non-physical? (or alternately - when did it change to become a place that pilots cannot ascend to) What is this place? (Unless you wish to provide an alternate I would choose to use Heaven V2 from this point on)
Do you believe in spirits?
Based upon the story you have presented, no. Based on reality, unsure and off topic.
As clearly explained, it was not the spiritual level of the time of Babel, near earth. It was the other ting.
I know that, thats why I have asked about its qualities four times now. You have cleared up any issue I have with Babel Heaven and also New Jerusalem.
As for a detailed study of what may or not have been only spiritual, that is off topic, and irrelevant.
So I can count on you not to bring it up? Its not in question so I would prefer to not bring more into this discussion than you already have.
What is relevant is that this spiritual is now separate from the physical only world of man! And has been for a long long time. The Starship Sceptre didn't have to worry about some spiritual level over Bethlehem, relax.
So explain the details of the Heaven that Jesus ascended to after his death (Heaven V2) so it can be ruled out as relevant to the Starship Sceptre.
No, they are on topic, because it involves a bible case, and your beliefs come into play. Or lack thereof.
Interesting that you are so adament to get me to describe my beliefs when others in this thread do not require the same scrutiny. Once again I do not believe the story that you have presented and that is obvious. I have no need to present an alternate story given that its your story under question. If I had a story that I wished to bring under question I would start a new thread. This thread is not about the reality of God to me, the reality of spirits or Heavens to me, or the level of faith I have in the Bible. None of these are on topic.
I have taken your story as the reality in question for the duration of this thread. If you are confident that your story can withstand scrutiny then we can procede. What I consider reality is completely off topic and unimportant for the purpose of this thread. This should not be so difficult to understand.
I don't claim to have science, only to meet the evidence, which your fantasy doesn't do. It fails to meet history. It was not observed. It also is not biblical, and the star of Bethlehem is a bible documented thing. On all fronts, your frog fantasy flops. Checkmate.
Of course its fantasy, I made it up for the purpose of placating your desire for me to present an alternate story. I said as much. What is under question is whether your story succedes in meeting history and biblical interpretation. You have not shown it to be successful to my satisfaction and I would suggest continuing the discussion of your story and not mine. My story did at least have a good chance of securing movie rights.
This paragraph of yours seems to do fine on that score. It is gibberish.
Oh? I could divide it up for you to better understand. Thus far you have:
  • Refused to answer questions
  • Asked me to answer my own questions
  • Attempted to change my words to avoid answering questions
  • Introduced elements that do not even relate to the questions I have asked.
    These four points are the source of my apparent confusion. Does that provide the clarity you had hoped for?
    You accuse me of not answering questions?
    Yes I do, on a number of occations. This post alone chronicles one issue that you have refused to answer my direct questions several times.
    If you want someone to relate to what you ask, stop mumbling, and hiding you true beliefs on the topic, and read the plethora of answers I gave, despite your childish behavior.
  • I don't want "someone", I want you to answer the questions I have regarding the details of your story.
  • I can't mumble in text.
  • My beliefs are off topic and if you cannot understand this its your shortcomming and not mine.
  • Give the answers to the questions I have asked, not the ones you wish I was asking
  • My childish behavior appears to be within the forum guidelines thus far.
    No thanks, I don't need froggy flash cards to note a demented fantasy.
    No problem. I am just ecstatic that you have started taking notes! This may alleviate the need for me to repeatedly quote the same things to keep you from changing what you and I both say.
    I think all readers can get a handle on your little statement of faith.
    The frog story is a story not a statement of faith. If all readers didn't understand that before then they do now. I had thought that saying I used Stephen King as my inspiration would have been a dead giveaway. You are correct though, some readers need it spelled out to them in great detail.
    Nice to see what I am up against in the way of well founded opposition.
    You got that right, I can make up stories like nobodies bussiness! I keep telling you they are off topic, but I can continue to make up frog stories as long as the Mods don't shut me down.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 218 by simple, posted 10-22-2007 6:43 PM simple has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 230 by simple, posted 10-23-2007 2:26 AM Vacate has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024