Contradictions in Christianity

[Joe Bruno]

In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".

How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????

The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".

How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?

Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?

[Joe Bruno]

Here are bible quotes on "graven images"

Exodus 20:4 ESV / 75 helpful votes

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Exodus 20:1-26 ESV / 47 helpful votes

And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...

Leviticus 26:1 ESV / 43 helpful votes

“You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God.

Acts 17:29 ESV / 40 helpful votes

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

Deuteronomy 4:16-19 ESV / 37 helpful votes

Beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Exodus 20:4-5 ESV / 21 helpful votes

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 20:5 ESV / 20 helpful votes

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Isaiah 42:8 ESV / 15 helpful votes

I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:

You think your religion is free of contradictions?





David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
(1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000
(1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2Chron. 4:5) baths;

Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old
when he began to reign;

Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years
old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8),
3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000
(1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were
500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron.21:5) men that
drew the sword in Judah;

There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs
of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons
(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by
Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young
Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600
(2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth
forever;

Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem
(2 Chron. 35:24);



Numbers 33:38
38 And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at
the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in
the fortieth year after the children of Israel
were come out of the land of Egypt, in the first
day of the fifth month.


Aaron dies at Mt Hor.


Deuteronomy 10:6
6 And the children of Israel took their journey
from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera:
there Aaron died, and there he was buried


Aaron dies at Mosera.

[Onion]

On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
> > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by
> > the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no
> > other gods before me".
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
> > God and therefore divine?
>
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian
> > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>
> � � You think your religion is free of contradictions?

This has nothing to do with the religion
Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
for salvation

>
> �David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand

> (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
as far as we know.

>
> Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000
> (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2Chron. 4:5) baths;

You will not be denied entry in heaven If you don't believe
any of the above because it is not a matter of salvation.
NOW GO AND FUCK DARWIN

Are you going to tell me that Sinai and Hoeb are too
different places?
No they are two different names for the same place
This is why we are trying to convince the Sola Scriptura
crowd not to approach the Bible the way they have been doing
-----------------------
Devillepin, L'Afrique n'est pas un vil pain et elle n'a pas de maitres
non plus quelque soit ce que te feront croire Mossi Dramane
Ouattara, Ban-Ki-Moon et leur complices

[Onion]

On May 14, 6:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????

Why go all the way in history down to the CRUSADES. Moses, the man who
handed down the Law
to the Israelite was killing the madianites, the Jebusites and the
Edomites as soon as he was through
talking to the Lord. Therefore, common sense would tell me that there
must be some circumstances
where killing is necessary

>
> The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".

A defense against polytheism and Idol worship and superstitions. Why
would YAHWEH allow
competition anyway?

>
> How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?

JESUS IS THE GOD WHO GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.
This is what is concealed in the writings

>
> Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".

"Because you did not see my face when I was speaking to you in the
desert, you
shall not represent me." Said the Lord

> How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?

But JESUS being the Living God in Bodily FORM according to Saint Paul,
that prohibition
became obsolete

[John Locke]

...it's not just Christianity, it's all of religion. Your "loving" god
is also a psychopathic killer. Now that's a big fat contradiction you
can't ignore...unless, of course, you're a deluded godbot.

[Joe Bruno]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:

> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>
> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> >
>
> > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by
>
> > > the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> >
>
> > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no
>
> > > other gods before me".
>
> >
>
> > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
>
> > > God and therefore divine?
>
> >
>
> > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>
> > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian
>
> > > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>
> >
>

> > � � You think your religion is free of contradictions?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This has nothing to do with the religion
>
> Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>
> for salvation
>
>
>
> >
>

> > �David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand

>
> > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
>
> as far as we know.

Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.

The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to teach.
They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on and on about
the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the theory of evolution.

Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology, Paleontology,
and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was known about these
things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000 years after Genesis was written.

Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

[Joe Bruno]

Not to Jews, it didn't.If the prohibition became "obsolete"to Christians, why is that not mentioned in the New Testament????
>

[sbalneav]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".

Yeah. They also appear in the Hebrew scriptures, as part of Exodus and
Deuteronomy. So perhaps you could tell us why the Jews went around on a mass
killing spree?

Please note, Joe: this is a question SPECIFICALLY to your Judaism.

--
sbalneav | The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible
a.a #2171 | worlds; the pessimist fears it is true.
alt-atheism.org | -- James Branch Cabell

[Joe Bruno]

Where in the Old Testament(Hebrew bible) does it say God is "loving"?
Jews don't give a hoot what the Christian New Testament says.

If you make a habit of equating Judaism with Christianity, you're gonna look very silly.The differences between the two religions are many and glaring.

[SkyEyes]

On May 14, 3:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?

Why are you asking atheists?

>
> Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
> How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?

The catholics saw early on that if they kept that commandment, they'd
lose a lucrative market in holy images. So they dumped the
commandment about not making any graven images and redistributed parts
of the first commandment to make a new second commandment, and, having
accomplished that, opened a gift shop.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Joe Bruno]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:20:28 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:

> On May 14, 6:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> >
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
>
>
>
>
> Why go all the way in history down to the CRUSADES. Moses, the man who
>
> handed down the Law
>
> to the Israelite was killing the madianites, the Jebusites and the
>
> Edomites as soon as he was through
>
> talking to the Lord. Therefore, common sense would tell me that there
>
> must be some circumstances
>
> where killing is necessary

There are.The commandment in the original Hebrew said:"Thou shalt not murder".
The OT even prescribes capital punishment for certain offenses.

The Talmud, Judaism's second holiest book, tells Jews that they must defend themselves against their enemies, that, if their enemy comes to kill them, they must kill him first.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
>
>
> A defense against polytheism and Idol worship and superstitions. Why
>
> would YAHWEH allow
>
> competition anyway?
>
>
>
> >
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>
>
>
> JESUS IS THE GOD WHO GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.
>
> This is what is concealed in the writings

It is well-concealed.Jews don't see it at all.
>
>
>
> >
>

[Onion]

Let me rephrase this claim for the purpose of clarity for a son of a
Jewish common slut:
The prohibition became obsolete for those who believe along
with Saint Paul that JESUS was the CHRIST and that CHRIST
was God in bodily form.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant,
and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion [1]
as a man,
he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of
the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him
a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven,
and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

If the Jews are not Christians of the party of Paul
it follows that that prohibition would not mean anything to them.
NOW WHAT IS YOUR CONTENTION?
-------------------
Mugabe Is My Hero... Don't Mess With Africa




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Chief Castrator Of The Jews]

On May 14, 1:00 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:

> > On May 14, 8:46 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>
> > > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> > > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by
>
> > > > the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> > > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no
>
> > > > other gods before me".
>
> > > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
>
> > > > God and therefore divine?
>
> > > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>
> > > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian
>
> > > > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>

> > > You think your religion is free of contradictions?
>
> > This has nothing to do with the religion
>
> > Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>
> > for salvation
>

> > > David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
>
> > > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
>
> > This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
>
> > as far as we know.
>
> Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.

"You shall not kill" was also written on the Tablets given by God to
Moses
and those tablets were secured in the ark of the Covenant that was
carried
around, yet this did not prevent Joshua to lay siege on Jericho and
kill a lot of innocent people except for a prostitute that
helped the Israelites spies...

----------------------
Devillepin, L'Afrique n'est pas un vil pain et elle n'a pas de maitres
non plus quelque soit ce que te feront croire Mossi Dramane
Ouattara, Ban-Ki-Moon et leur complices

>

[John Locke]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno

<atan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:04:35 AM UTC-7, John Locke wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 03:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
>>
>> <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>> >
>>
>> >How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>>
>> >
>>
>> >How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>>
>> >How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>>
>> >
>>
>> ...it's not just Christianity, it's all of religion. Your "loving" god
>>
>> is also a psychopathic killer. Now that's a big fat contradiction you
>>
>> can't ignore...unless, of course, you're a deluded godbot.
>
>Where in the Old Testament(Hebrew bible) does it say God is "loving"?
>Jews don't give a hoot what the Christian New Testament says.
>

Here's a couple for starters:

“For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things
that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you had
hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it?
Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You
spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.
For your immortal spirit is in all things.” - Wisdom of Solomon
11:24-12:1

"The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take
great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice
over you with singing." - Zephaniah 3:17

>If you make a habit of equating Judaism with Christianity, you're gonna look very silly.The differences between the two religions are many and glaring.

...I'm not equating anything. I'm pointing out the contradictory
nature of "God". Only a god invented by man would be endowed
with both loving and genocidal characteristics. If there really were a
god, this would not be the case. A real god would not be subject to
human flaws and emotions, its existence would be blatantly obvious,
its message to the flocks would be clear and precise and there would
be nothing to fear.

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:

>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote

>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785-9f84-fe
> 4b062...@googlegroups.com:

>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>>
>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition
>> > > ordered b
> y
>>
>> > > the Pope in the 11th century?????
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall
>> > > have no
>>
>> > > other gods before me".
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son
>> > > of
>>
>> > > God and therefore divine?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven
>> > > images".
>>
>> > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in
>> > > Christian
>>
>> > > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>>
>> >
>>

>> > � � You think your religion is free of contradictions?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with the religion
>>
>> Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>>
>> for salvation
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>

>> > �David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand

>>
>> > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
>>
>> as far as we know.
>
> Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said
> before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different
> people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of
> earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.
>
> The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to
> teach. They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on
> and on about the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the
> theory of evolution.
>
> Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology,
> Paleontology, and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was
> known about these things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of
> evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000
> years after Genesis was written.
>
> Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.

If your book is so riddled with errors
then why believe any of it?

[Mitchell Holman]

Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote in
news:29c52485-5f20-4755...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On May 14, 8:46 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>> > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered
>> > by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>>
>> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have
>> > no other gods before me".
>>
>> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
>> > God and therefore divine?
>>
>> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven
>> > images". How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in
>> > Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>>
>>     You think your religion is free of contradictions?
>
>
>
> This has nothing to do with the religion
> Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
> for salvation
>
>>
>>  David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
>> (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
>
>
>
> This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
> as far as we know.
>

So whose fault is it that the Torah
has so many mistakes and contradictions?

[hypatiab7]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:17:26 PM UTC-4, SkyEyes wrote:
> On May 14, 3:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????

The desire for power and riches.

>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?

Some Christians seem to be replacing the old god with his 'son'.

>
> Why are you asking atheists?

We seem to know more about their religions than most fundies do.

>
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>
> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>
> The catholics saw early on that if they kept that commandment, they'd
> lose a lucrative market in holy images. So they dumped the
> commandment about not making any graven images and redistributed parts
> of the first commandment to make a new second commandment, and, having
> accomplished that, opened a gift shop.

Several, probably.

[hypatiab7]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:01:34 PM UTC-4, sbalneav wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
>
>
> Yeah. They also appear in the Hebrew scriptures, as part of Exodus and
> Deuteronomy. So perhaps you could tell us why the Jews went around on a mass
> killing spree?

>
> Please note, Joe: this is a question SPECIFICALLY to your Judaism.
>

> sbalneav | The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible
>
> a.a #2171 | worlds; the pessimist fears it is true.
>
> alt-atheism.org | -- James Branch Cabell

I've recently added sections on Biblical Myths, Contradictions,
Errancy, Errors, Absurdities and Fraud to my website. Religious
fanatics like Artie will hate this but people interested in the
truth will love it. The link below is to the entire page these
sections are on.

http://alt-atheism.org/thegathering:religion_and_religious_history

There's also much more atheist information on the Links Page.

When I said that I had completed the website, I meant the entire
old website had been updated. Since then, I've added lots of new
atheist and anti-religion material. There was so much material to
choose from that sometimes it was difficult deciding which links
to use.

[Father Haskell]

Same reason kids' story books have pictures. The church goers
were mostly illiterate.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman

<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:

>>> >
>>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".

Yet both Jews and Christians kill.

>>> > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition

>>> > > ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????

Duh. Neither Jewish nor Christian leaders take any notice of the
commandments they are supposed to follow.

>>> > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall
>>> > > have no other gods before me".

So the people who eventually became the Jews were polytheists.

>>> > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son
>>> > > of God and therefore divine?

Ask Christians.

However both Christians and Jews cherry pick which bits to believe.

>>> > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven
>>> > > images".
>>>
>>> > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in
>>> > > Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>>>
>>> > You think your religion is free of contradictions?
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with the religion
>>>
>>> Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>>> for salvation
>>> >
>>> > David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
>>>
>>> > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
>>>
>>> This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
>>> as far as we know.

Only in the deluded imagination of members of the religion whose
scripture it is.

Where did the moron who posted this in alt.atheism demonstrate this
hypothetical God for it to dictate the Torah before rudely and
stupidly presuming it where he knows nobody believes that bullshit?

>> Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said
>> before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different
>> people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of
>> earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.

Incorrect.

There is nothing to deny in the real world outside the deluded
fantasies of Bruno's religion.

Until he demonstrates it.

So what "God-deniers" was he lying about?

>> The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to
>> teach. They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on
>> and on about the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the
>> theory of evolution.

So do some equally stupid Jews like the followers of the New York
Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.

>> Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology,
>> Paleontology, and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was

They didn't even exist for the tribe that wrote the stories.

>> known about these things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of
>> evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000
>> years after Genesis was written.

Darwin didn't come up with evolution - he just provided the first
scientific explanation for it. While it goes back to the ancient Greek
Animaxander, the first "modern" proponent was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
although Leonardo da Vinci recognised fossils for what they were.

By Darwin's time it was known about by the educated and the interested
laymen who collected fossils and even modern specimens - collecting
plants, birds' eggs, butterflies and moths etc was a common outdoor
hobby in the days before modern indoor distractions.

Darwin's explanation for it replaced Lamarck's.

>> Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.

Yet another of the pathological liar's lies about atheists and
atheism, to atheists in their own newsgroup..

> If your book is so riddled with errors
>then why believe any of it?

Because he cherry picks bits and rationalises others out of existence.

Just like any other religious loonie.

[nature bats last]

On May 14, 10:17 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 14, 3:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>
> Why are you asking atheists?
>
>
>
;
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".

> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churc=

> hes and statues of saints made by Catholics?

;
> The catholics saw early on that if they kept that commandment, they'd
> lose a lucrative market in holy images. So they dumped the
> commandment about not making any graven images and redistributed parts
> of the first commandment to make a new second commandment, and, having
> accomplished that, opened a gift shop.

Besides, images like that are far more powerful in
provoking feelings of reverence and surrender than
words are.

AND, if you're trying to pitch your scam to an
essentially illiterate populace, then you're not going
to go around handing out copies of "Summa Theologica".


NBL

[Yap]

On May 14, 10:20 pm, Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 6:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> Why go all the way in history down to the CRUSADES. Moses, the man who
> handed down the Law
> to the Israelite was killing the madianites,  the Jebusites and the
> Edomites as soon as he was through
> talking to the Lord. Therefore, common sense would tell me that there
> must be some circumstances
> where killing is necessary

Hah, even today we find an idiot who agreed that religious killing was
necessary and being sanctioned by the pixie.

>
>
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> A defense against polytheism and Idol worship and superstitions. Why
> would YAHWEH allow
> competition anyway?

Wow, this shows your pixie was absolutely powerless and useless.

>
>
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>
> JESUS IS THE GOD WHO GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.
> This is what is concealed in the writings

Heh??
Isn't Moses lived many years before this carpenter human you called
Jesus?

>
>
>
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>
> "Because you did not see my face when I was speaking to you in the
> desert, you
> shall not represent me." Said the Lord

We also know mirage is just an image from afar.
The cons might have seen the mirage talking, but of course you are
welcome to embrace your mirage tightly.

>
> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>
> But JESUS being the Living God in Bodily FORM according to Saint Paul,
> that prohibition
> became obsolete

Where do you find this living pixie of yours?
In your ass?

[Onion]

On May 14, 5:53�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

The LAW/TORAH dictated to Moses by God and secured in the ARK
of COVENANT has NO contradiction.
The reports of the event might have something close
to contradiction which in fact is no contradiction, but
a superficial reading on your part

[Joe Bruno]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:17:26 AM UTC-7, SkyEyes wrote:
> On May 14, 3:47 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> >
>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>
> >
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> >
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>
>
>
> Why are you asking atheists?

I'm not. It's a rhetorical question, a question whose answer is obvious.

>
> >
>
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>
> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?
>
>
>
> The catholics saw early on that if they kept that commandment, they'd
>
> lose a lucrative market in holy images. So they dumped the
>
> commandment about not making any graven images and redistributed parts
>
> of the first commandment to make a new second commandment, and, having
>
> accomplished that, opened a gift shop.

That's cute.What you say makes me laugh because selling religious objects
is one of the things Jesus criticized the Temple priests, the Pharisees, for doing.

[Joe Bruno]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>

> >>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> >
>
> >>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>
> >>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
>
>
> Yet both Jews and Christians kill.

The original Hebrew did not say "kill". It said "Thou shalt not murder", which is a different thing entirely.The different wording allows capital punishment and defensive wars and self-defense.

Why is it, Loudmouth Lee, that all your posts say exactly the same thing in the same words, with the same accusations and the same insults?
It's obvious to me that (1)you aren't very smart and (2)your vocabulary is extremely limited.You're even too ignorant to know what the word"lie" means.
The word means a falsehood told with the intent to deceive.You apply it to anything you disagree with. I'd guess that's why you are unable to provide any evidence to support the accusation.
>
>
>

[James]

The Chief Castrator Of The Jews <Codeb...@bigsecret.com>

>On May 14, 1:00�pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>> > On May 14, 8:46 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>>
>> > > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>> > > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by
>>
>> > > > the Pope in the 11th century?????

They clearly were not Jesus' true disciples because Jesus said at Mt
19:19b,

"...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (KJV)

>>
>> > > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no
>>
>> > > > other gods before me".
>>
>> > > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
>>
>> > > > God and therefore divine?

Actually, Christendom claims that Jesus is part of a Trinitarian god.
But the true God of the Bible is only "one". De 6:4,

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV)

Jesus was CREATED by God, thus he cannot be worshipped. Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Who did Jesus say to worship? Himself? Mt 4:10,

"Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship
the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"" (NIV)

Notice "him only"

>>
>> > > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>>
>> > > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian
>>
>> > > > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?

How is it explained? Genuine Christians go by God's word. 2 Co
6:14-17,

"14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do
righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can
light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and
Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we
are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with
them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my
people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the
Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."" (NIV)

>>
>> > > You think your religion is free of contradictions?
>>
>> > This has nothing to do with the religion
>>
>> > Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>>
>> > for salvation
>>
>> > > David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
>>
>> > > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

Scribal error is the possible explanation. The Bible says "all
Scripture" is inspired of God, not all COPIES of Scripture.
Translators can put whatever they want in their Bibles. That doesn't
make them necessarily right.

Concerning 2 Sa 8:4 and 1 Ch 18:4:
In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and
7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps
preserves the original reading.

But note that no DOCTRINAL points are in error here. Just some
numbers. I think the Bible did real good at copying itself,
considering it was written by over 40 people over a period of 1600
years, and then copied many times after that.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Unholy Hands on the Bible:
An Introduction to Textual Criticism [Hardcover]
Dean J. Burgon (Author)


Excellent defense of the Textus Receptus/ Majority Text August 12,
2001
By Gary F. Zeolla
This volume was edited by Jay P. Green, and he has added some of his
own material. But the bulk of the book is taken from the writings of
Burgon (1813-1888).

Burgon was a stanch defender of the Textus Receptus (TR) against the
then new text of Westcott and Hort (WH). Today's Majority Text (MT) is
very similar to the TR and today's Critical Text (CT) to the WH text.

This volume actually contains several books by Burgon. The first book
defends "The Traditional Text of the New Testament" against the new WH
text.

The following quote summarizes his argument: "Does the truth of the
Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and
cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the
MARVELOUS AGREEMENT which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be
supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful
of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the
manuscripts, and also differ widely among themselves?" (p.9).

He then lists and explains his "Seven Notes of Truth." They are: 1.
Antiquity, or Primitiveness. 2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number. 3.
Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity [i.e. geographical distribution].
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight. 5. Continuity, or Unbroken
Tradition. 6. Evidence of the Entire passage, or Context. 7. Internal
Considerations, or Reasonableness (UnHoly, Vol. I, p.15).

These Seven Notes of Truth are still followed today by MT scholars,
such as Robinson and Pierpont, the producers of the Byzantine Majority
Text. This writer used this Greek text when producing my Analytical-
Literal Translation of the New Testament. So indirectly, Burgon had an
influence on my translation work.

The second book looks at "The Cause of the Corruption of the
Traditional Text of the Gospels." He then goes into detail on various
accidental and intentional causes of corruption. He demonstrates why
it is manuscripts like Aleph and Beta, which WH favored, which are
more likely to have these corruptions than the Byzantine manuscripts
underlining the TR.

Next he looks at "The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to
Mark." He explains why a few manuscripts more likely omitted this
passage than that it was added to the bulk of manuscripts. He does the
same with the story of "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (John 7:53-8:11).

He also looks at "The Revision Revised." This is "A Critique of the
English Revised Version of 1881." Although the RV is no longer
popular, most new versions still follow the ideas underlining it. So
this book is still relevant today.

Then Burgon demonstrates the "Proof of the Genuineness of God
Manifested on the Flesh." This is a detailed defense of the reading of
"God" in the TR in 1Timonthy 3:16 rather than the WH text reading of
"who." This variant is important as with "God" the verse demonstrates
the deity of Christ, but with "who" this proof-text is lost.

Then comes a book on "The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort." This
book demonstrates fallacies in the reasoning of WH. The volume then
closes with a short book on "Conflation and the `Neutral' Text." In
this book Burgon critiques Hort's textual transmission theory.

Overall, Burgon's writings are very in-depth. The amount of
information in this book can be overwhelming, and it is rather
difficult reading. So this volume is not for the person new to the
subject. For such a person I would suggest my book Differences Between
Bible Versions. It has an entire section on Greek text types, starting
with a chapter titled "Introduction to Textual Criticism." So my book
would be the place to begin, and Burgon's books in this volume would
be the place to go for much greater detail.

http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Hands-Bible-Introduction-Criticism/dp/1878442635

[Onion]

On May 14, 1:17 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > JESUS IS THE GOD WHO GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.
>
> > This is what is concealed in the writings
>
> It is well-concealed.Jews don't see it at all.

But Saint Paul in his epistle to the Roman informed us, regarding the
Jews unbelief that
there was a mystery being played out. See Roman 11


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Onion]

WHY DO YOU THINK EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABOUT MONEY?
Catholics had a good reason to dump the commandment and this appears
to be consistent with their core doctrine of incarnation. If Jesus is
the Living
God who dictated the Law to God, there is no sense not to represent
Him
as the reason not to represent God was clearly stated in the Torah:
'BECAUSE YOU DID NOT SEE MY FACE, when I was speaking to you
at Horeb, you shall not represent me."
HOW DARE YOU ATHEISTS

[Joe Bruno]

Jews don't accept the New Testament.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >

[vince garcia]

What hypocrisy!

That's why your version of the Bible perverts Hebrews by rendering one
of its most important verses as "GOD IS YOUR THRONE" instead of the
correct "Thy throne O God" to dillute the deity of Christ

An angel sits on God's face in your bible, making God subservient to an
angel in YOUR world

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:108e81cf-8b52-4df5...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>
>> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> >news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>>

>> >>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote

>:
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> >>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>> >
>>
>> >>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the
>> >>> > > Ten
>>
>> >>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet both Jews and Christians kill.
>
> The original Hebrew did not say "kill". It said "Thou shalt not
> murder", which is a different thing entirely.The different wording
> allows capital punishment and defensive wars and self-defense.

When Moses ordered unarmed people to be
killed was it murder or self-defense?



Then Moses said to the Levites, "This is what the LORD, the
God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side.
Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other,
each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The
Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three
thousand of the people died.
Exodus 32

[Yap]

Do they accept the OT?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Yap]

On May 16, 9:56 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:108e81cf-8b52-4df5...@googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>

> >> >Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote in

>
> >> >news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>
> >> >>> On May 14, 8:46 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote
> >:
>
> >> >>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> >>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the
> >> >>> > > Ten
>
> >> >>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> >> Yet both Jews and Christians kill.
>
> > The original Hebrew did not say "kill". It said "Thou shalt not
> > murder", which is a different thing entirely.The different wording
> > allows capital punishment and defensive wars and self-defense.
>
>     When Moses ordered unarmed people to be
> killed was it murder or self-defense?
>
> Then Moses said to the Levites, "This is what the LORD, the
> God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side.
> Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other,
> each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The
> Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three
> thousand of the people died.
> Exodus 32

Wow, some scheme for murder....
And those murderers believed Moses just like that?

Now we know why they were a barbaric tribe...

[Olrik]

Le 2013-05-15 10:06, Onion a �crit :

Anyone found that �ark� yet?

> The reports of the event might have something close
> to contradiction which in fact is no contradiction, but
> a superficial reading on your part
>

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Homilies of St. John Chrysostom,

archbishop of constantinople,

on the

gospel according to st. matthew.

————————————

Homily I.

5. And why can it have been, that when there were so many disciples,
two write only from among the apostles, and two from among their
followers? (For one that was a disciple of Paul, and another of Peter,
together with Matthew and John, wrote the Gospels.) It was because
they did nothing for vainglory, but all things for use.
3

“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?” One indeed
was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same
times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and
conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were
out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.
26

6. “But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many
places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a
very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all
things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of
our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and
had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire
agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that
discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from
all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the
writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have
related differently, this nothing27injures the truth of what they have
said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will
endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with
what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those
which constitute our life and furnish out28our doctrine, nowhere is
any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that
He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that
He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath
given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law
not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-
begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with
the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these
we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all,
but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on
the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have
been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and
different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not
have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in
common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of
his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and
cast on the heap29to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test
of the truth of their affirmations perfect.30

7. Now Luke tells us also the cause wherefore he proceeds to write:
“that thou mayest hold,” saith he, “the certainty of the words wherein
thou hast been instructed;”31that is, that being continually reminded
thou mayest hold to the certainty,32and abide in certainty.

But as to John, he hath himself kept silence touching the cause; yet,
33(as a tradition34saith, which hath come down to us from the first,
even from the Fathers,) neither did he come to write without purpose;
but forasmuch as it had been the care of the three to dwell upon the
account of the dispensation,35and the doctrines of the Godhead were
near being left in silence, he, moved by Christ, then and not till
then set himself to compose his Gospel.36 And this is manifest both
from the history itself, and from the opening of his Gospel. For he
doth not begin like the rest from beneath, but from above, from the
same point, at which he was aiming, and it was with a view to this
that37he composed the whole book. And not in the beginning only, but
throughout all the Gospel, he is more lofty than the rest.

Of Matthew again it is said,38 that when those who from amongst the
Jews had believed came to him, and besought him to leave to them in
writing those same things, which he had spoken to them by word, he
also composed his Gospel in the language of the Hebrews. And Mark too,
in Egypt,39 is 4 said to have done this self-same thing at the
entreaty of the disciples.

For this cause then Matthew, as writing to Hebrews, sought to shew
nothing more, than that He was from Abraham, and David; but Luke, as
discoursing to all in general, traces up the account higher, going on
even to Adam. And the one begins with His generation, because nothing
was so soothing to the Jew as to be told that Christ was the offspring
of Abraham and David: the other doth not so, but mentions many other
things, and then proceeds to the genealogy.

8. But the harmony between them we will establish, both by the whole
world, which hath received their statements, and by the very enemies
of the truth. For many sects have had birth, since their time, holding
opinions opposed to their words; whereof some have received all that
they have said, while some have cut off from the rest certain portions
of their statements, and so retain them for themselves.40 But if there
were any hostility41in their statements, neither would the sects, who
maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as
seemed to harmonize with themselves; nor would those, which have
parted off a portion, be utterly refuted by that portion; so that the
very fragments42cannot be hid, but declare aloud their connexion43with
the whole body. And like as if thou shouldest take any part from the
side of an animal, even in that part thou wouldest find all the things
out of which the whole is composed;—nerves and veins, bones, arteries,
and blood, and a sample, as one might say, of the whole lump;—so
likewise with regard to the Scriptures; in each portion of what is
there stated, one may see the connexion with the whole clearly
appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have
been pointed out, and the doctrine itself had long since been brought
to nought: “for every kingdom,” saith He, “divided against itself
shall not stand.”44 But now even in this shines forth the might of the
Spirit, namely, in that it prevailed on these men, engaged as they
were in those things which are more necessary and very urgent, to take
no hurt at all from these little matters.

Now, where each one was abiding, when he wrote, it is not right for us
to affirm very positively.

But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to
prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of
disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou wert to insist upon
their using the same words and forms of speech.

9. And I do not yet say, that those likewise who glory greatly in
rhetoric and philosophy, having many of them written many books
touching the same matters, have not merely expressed themselves
differently, but have even spoken in opposition to one another (for it
is one thing to speak differently and another to speak at variance);
none of these things do I say. Far be it from me to frame our defense
from the frenzy of those men, neither am I willing out of falsehood to
make recommendations for the truth.

But this I would be glad to inquire: how were the differing accounts
believed? how did they prevail? how was it that, while saying opposite
things, they were admired, were believed, were celebrated everywhere
in the world?

And yet the witnesses of what they said were many, and many too were
the adversaries and enemies thereof. For they did not write these
things in one corner and bury them, but everywhere, by sea and by
land, they unfolded them in the ears of all, and these things were
read in the presence of enemies, even as they are now, and none of the
things which they said offended any one. And very naturally, for it
was a divine power that pervaded all, and made it to prosper with all
men.

10. For if it had not been so, how could the publican, and the
fisherman, and the unlearned, have attained to such philosophy?45 For
things, which they that are without have never been able to imagine,
no not in a dream, are by these men with great certainty both
published and made convincing, and not in their lives only, but even
after death: neither to two men, nor twenty men, nor an hundred, nor a
thousand, nor ten thousand, but to cities, nations, and people, both
to land and sea, in the land both of Greeks and barbarians, both
inhabited and desert; and all concerning things far beyond our nature.
For leaving the earth, all their discourse is concerning the things in
heaven, while they bring in unto us another principle of life, another
5 manner of living: both wealth and poverty, freedom and slavery, life
and death, our world and our polity, all changed.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.iv.html

[Devils Advocaat]

On 14 May, 11:47, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".

Does it not also say the same in the Torah?

>
> How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????

How then, do you explain the war fought by your ancestors to rid the
"promised land" of its legitimate occupants?

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:47 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> The LAW/TORAH dictated to Moses by God and secured in the ARK
>> of COVENANT has NO contradiction.
>
>Anyone found that «ark» yet?

Of course. It is located directly under the site of the crucifixion
and has some of Christ's dried blood on it.

You will find all the details, along with drawings and models at
http://www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/

It is on the Internet so must be true.

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

No comment on the above Scriptures? Hopefully then you accept their
application, esp Col 1:15 showing Jesus to be a created being.

Concerning the translation of "God is your throne" as opposed to "Thy
throne O God", notice this non-JW translation that twists the words
around. He 1:8 quotes Ps 45:6.

Ps 45:6, " Your throne is from God, for ever and ever,
the sceptre of your kingship a sceptre of justice, (NJ)

He 1:8, " but to the Son he says:
Your throne, God, is for ever and ever;
and:
the sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of justice;" (NJ)

Thus they were not consistant in this Catholic New Jersusalem Bible,
and changed the words around at He 1:8, even though it is a direct
quote of Ps 45:6.

Todays English Version Bible has a footnote at He 1:8, "Your kingdom,
O God, will last; or God is your kingdom."

The New Revised Standard Bible has a footnote at He 1:8,''or God is
your throne."

Thus GOD IS YOUR THRONE can be a proper rendering of the text. Here is
some more information:

Concerning Hebrews 1:8. The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7
and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9
"therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who
is anointed by God and one who worships God.

Also, the the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1 Ch
29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling David,
Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation "Your throne, O
God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your throne" because
there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or Greek documents, thus
it is up to the translators to insert it. Since He 1:8 is quoting
Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered "God is your throne".

The Bible scholar B.F.Wescott said that it was scarcely possible that
"Elohim" (God) should be addressed to a human king thus the
translation "God is thy throne" seemed the best one.

Some other Bible translations that use this wording are An American
Translation, Moffatt, and the marginal readings of American Standard
Version, RSV,and NEB.

Thus the NWT is not alone in rendering it like : "God is your throne".

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org









>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Hands-Bible-Introduction-Criticism/dp/18...

[Uncle Vic]

Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote in news:29c52485-5f20-4755-9660-
9166ed...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> Only the Torah was dictated by God
> as far as we know.

You misspelled "believe".

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Onion]

On May 16, 11:38 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:29c52485-5f20-4755-9660-
> 9166ed44f...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Only the Torah was dictated by God
> > as far as we know.
>
> You misspelled "believe".

We know it to be true because Jesus Al Massih/Christ confirmed it.
I did not misspelled believe, you guys are the ones
introducing a new faulty approach...
---------------
It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
the worlds

[Onion]

WHO WAS SEARCHING FOR IT?
We found the MESSIAH/CHRIST who is a far better
ark than the one sculpted by the hands of man.
--------------
Our books are good. So Good... I mean damn GOOD
sometime I feel like I wanna scream

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
<atan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.
>

>The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to teach.
>They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on and on about
>the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the theory of evolution.
>
>Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology, Paleontology,
>and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was known about these
>things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000 years after Genesis was written.
>
>Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.
>

Can you list any atheists who have disagreed with what you say here?

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:47:36 -0700 (PDT), The Chief Castrator Of The
Jews <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>
>
>"You shall not kill" was also written on the Tablets given by God to
>Moses
>and those tablets were secured in the ark of the Covenant that was
>carried
>around, yet this did not prevent Joshua to lay siege on Jericho and
>kill a lot of innocent people except for a prostitute that
> helped the Israelites spies...

Really?
Can you show the original and demonstrate the context of these words?
Can you show the word was "Kill"
Can you give a place in the OT that tells what was written by God on
these tablets?
24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in
the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars,
according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

So Moses wrote what went before.

Next we have Exodus 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me
into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone,
and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest
teach them.

For the next eight chapters or so we have directions on building an
alter and a dress code, then we have Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto
Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai,
two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of
God.

I'm not sure it could all be written on two tablets even if both sides
were used and god had a 10 point finger, but nowhere does it say what
was on those tablets.

(This is not my work, read The Ten Commandments By Davies to see what
a real scholar says about the subject.)

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
<atan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Not to Jews, it didn't.If the prohibition became "obsolete"to Christians, why is that not mentioned in the New Testament????

It is not mentioned specifically but Christ says the law is still in
effect in a couple places.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://carm.org/heb-18-and-psalm-456-god-thy-throne

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne."

Your Throne O God"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne
forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of
uprightness'" The New World Translation.

In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The
Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in
two legitimate ways:

"God is your throne forever and ever....
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."

But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God,
they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling
Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most
Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does.
They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.

First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness
is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).

In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your
throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne
endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation
because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in
construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a
pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take
the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient
translations..."1

When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical
requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the
best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not
conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing
with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as
God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT
that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They
knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section
that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was
in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v.
15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to
the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write
to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great
majority of theologians agree with, a description of the devil's
fall. So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of
Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm
45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT,
not the other way around.

Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son,
Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him,
and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-
born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship
Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His
ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O
God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of
His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness
above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay
the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy
hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11).

To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to
say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne."
What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His
throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.

Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning
didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works
of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I
say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years
are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth;
And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one
being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of
the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to
be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even
more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says
the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I,
the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by
Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the
foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has
to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the
same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly
this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore,
contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O
God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it
cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is
God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit
the context or overall theology of the Bible.

[vince garcia]

The incompetance of "God is your throne" is beyond human comprehension.

ANYONE who renders it that way is incompetent. PERIOD.

"I went to sleep with a headache"

As a friend pointed out courtesy of his Hebrew professor, take that
statement in english, and the equivalent in Hebrew could be translated
in one of two ways:

"I went to sleep with a headache"

Or

"I died, and my head fell off"

And if I point that out to be technical, I'm not saying the sentence
should be EQUALLY understood either way, and the guy who chooses the
second translation is on equal fooiing with the guy who chooses the
first rendering.

the guy who goes with the second rendering and thinks that's what the
writer meant is a blooming idiot.

You'd say it should be translated the latter way, simply because it CAN
be translated that way, if THAT way would fit your JW agenda.

The utter stupidity of the statement "God is your throne" is like saying
"God is your footstool"

Just because something can theoretically be translated a certain way,
doesn't mean the weird, abberant, nutty translation that totally
redefines the orthodox theology taught by the text into perverted
theology, is the CORRECT tranalation, especially when the full
ramifications of the theology obviously place God in a position of
subservience to the person being spoken to!

If you don't realise, the RULER sits on the throne. The throne is not
superior to the ruler, and does not represent a greater power THAN the
ruler.

Instead of running away as you probably will now do, why don't you name
for us every orthodox jewish source you can find that renders psalm 45:6
as "God is your throne" instead of an abberant gentile source?

And the comments about Jesus being a created being are not worthy of
responding to

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Onion
<kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:

>
>> > The LAW/TORAH dictated to Moses by God and secured in the ARK
>> > of COVENANT has NO contradiction.
>>
>> Anyone found that ark yet?
>
>WHO WAS SEARCHING FOR IT?
>We found the MESSIAH/CHRIST who is a far better
>ark than the one sculpted by the hands of man.
>--------------
>Our books are good. So Good... I mean damn GOOD
>sometime I feel like I wanna scream

Lots of people have searched or it. It's existence would at least give
some support to the myth of the Exodus and the stories built around
it.

[Uncle Vic]

Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a705-
ffa7fe...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> the worlds

Why are they named after Roman gods then?

[Uncle Vic]

Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote in news:d7d033b7-b6e2-45f6-a47f-
eb73e9...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> Our books are good. So Good... I mean damn GOOD
> sometime I feel like I wanna scream

ONION! Put that knife down!

ONION!!!

[Olrik]

Le 2013-05-16 12:09, Onion a �crit :

Lots of people, actually. They even made a superb documentary about it:

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971>

> We found the MESSIAH/CHRIST who is a far better
> ark than the one sculpted by the hands of man.

But like the ark, it did not even exist.

> --------------
> Our books are good. So Good... I mean damn GOOD
> sometime I feel like I wanna scream

You're one very perturbed individual, Cody.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Concerning He 1:10 it reads,

"He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of
the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." (NIV)

Paul here again quotes the Psalms, Ps 102:25. Are all the exact ideas
quoted? Ps 102:25 reads,

"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the
heavens are the work of your hands."

Notice that Paul inserted the word "Lord" when quoting the Psalms and
not 'my Lord','Lord God','God', or something similar. Since Paul from
verse 5 is making God as the speaker, God would be referring to His
son as being worthy of the Title Lord meaning one who has authority,
ownership, and power over persons and things. But Paul clearly knew
who had the greatest authority. In 1 Co 11:3 Paul writes,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

After Jesus was created, he had the privilege to be part of the rest
of the creative processes that God wanted done, thus the words at 1:10
certainly apply to Jesus. (Col 1:15,16)

That is also why Genesis talks about "us" and "our" concerning
creation. (Ge 1:26)

>This becomes even
>more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says
>the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I,
>the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by
>Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the
>foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has
>to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the
>same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly
>this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore,
>contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O
>God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

Jesus was the first to be created. (Col 1:15) After that, as Ge 1:26
says,

" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of
the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

As any loving Father would do, He let Jesus participate in some way,
the rest of creation.

>
>The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God.

The JW's go by what the Bible says. If it said that Jesus was God,
then that would be their teaching. But it doesn't. The Bible says that
Jesus was a created being (Col 1:15), thus he cannot possibly be God.
And to worship Jesus would be worshipping the creation, rather that
the One who created.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation"

by Matt Slick

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all

creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in
the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things
invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or
governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created
through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by
means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17,
for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the
NWT's addition of 'other' into the text four times. This is discussed
here.)

firstborn in greekThe Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word
"firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with
their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of
course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created
thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from
claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first
created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the
Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is
proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we
find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be
proto with ktizo and it is not used here.

Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting.
It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can
also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found
David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall
make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the
last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a
title of preeminence.

Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born
Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all
my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For
God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My
firstborn (NASB)."

Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a
meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means
here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it
can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is
obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the
first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all
things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine
Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them
in their thinking and believing.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/col-115-firstborn-all-creation

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>my father�'s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For

>God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
> Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My
>firstborn (NASB)."
>
>Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a
>meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means
>here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it
>can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is
>obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the
>first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all
>things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine
>Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them
>in their thinking and believing.
>
>http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/col-115-firstborn-all-creation

JW's believe Jesus was the first of the creations by God because of
the CONTEXT of Col 1:15. Let's look at verses 15 and 16 together.

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (NIV)

The meaning of "firstborn" here is definately being appled to birth
order. Verse 16 talks about the other 'births' or things created.
Jesus was the first, then through him the rest of creation came into
existence.

It appears here that God was using David to forshadow the coming of
his first-born son, Jesus. Notice how God talks about the Messianic
Shepherd as "my servant David" in Eze 34:24.

Paul agrees with the way of creation at 1 Cor 8:6, "yet for us there
is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we
live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things
came and through whom we live." (NIV) Just as in harmoney with the
other scriptures, verse 6 says "from" God came all things (Because of
God, all things came into existence) and "through" Jesus came all
other things. (after Jesus was created, all the rest of creation came
through him.)

And if Jesus was some part of a strange Trinity arrangement, then are
all supposed to be co-equal in Heaven. But Paul clearly shows that
Jesus in Heaven is in subjection go God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

How can you explain that verse if they are Trinitarian speaking
supposed to be co-equal in Heaven?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:54 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>JW's believe Jesus was the first of the creations by God because of
>the CONTEXT of Col 1:15. Let's look at verses 15 and 16 together.

That's their problem - but when they can't keep this bullshit where it
belongs, they FIRST have to demonstrate this hypothetical god is more
than just a figment of their deluded imagination.

[Bible verses the moron is also too stupid to realise have no
authority until he demonstrates they do, deleted]

Who the fuck does the moron imagine would give a shit about what JWs
belief if they kept it to themselves, and if they didn't refuse proper
medical treatment to their children?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 18, 11:04 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is
, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:


Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"

If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.

The only way it can be reconciled is the way
the Bible does it.


Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Notice: Name singular, three persons.

HaShem - יהוה

By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-
vav-hey (יהוה– YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally
means The Name.

http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>On May 18, 11:04�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"

Actually, with the false Trinity belief, there would be 3 lords. Lord
God, Lord Jesus, Lord Holy Spirit.

>
>
>Mark 12:29
>And Jesus answered him,
>The first of all the commandments is
>, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
>
>
>Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
>
>If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.
>
>The only way it can be reconciled is the way
> the Bible does it.

The Bible calls God "lord" and Jesus "lord". (Amos 7:1; Lu 24:3)

Also notice that God is "one". Not a composite of three.

>
>
>Matthew 28:19
>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> baptizing them in the name
> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Notice it just names 3 items. It doesn't say they are are co-equal or
part of some false post-Biblical Trinity doctrine.

If i said: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph", does that make them a Trinity?

>
>Notice: Name singular, three persons.
>

>HaShem - ????

>
>By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
>
>HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-

>vav-hey (????� YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally

>means The Name.
>
>http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html

Apparently they still have that old superstition of not pronouncing
the divine name. Yet God included it in His written word around 7000
times. Looks like He wants us to use it, doesn't it. KJV Ps 83:18,

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
most high over all the earth."

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 19, 8:58 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

>
> >On May 18, 11:04 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"
>
> Actually, with the false Trinity belief, there would be 3 lords. Lord
> God, Lord Jesus, Lord Holy Spirit.
>

Duh! One God,three persons.

>
>
> >Mark 12:29
> >And Jesus answered him,
> >The first of all the commandments is
> >, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
>
> >Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
>
> >If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.
>
> >The only way it can be reconciled is the way
> > the Bible does it.
>
> The Bible calls God "lord" and Jesus "lord". (Amos 7:1; Lu 24:3)
>
> Also notice that God is "one". Not a composite of three.

"...the two are united into one." The Hebrew word translated as "one"
is "echad." It means "a composite one." One that is made up of more
than one. The same word is used in Deut 6:4 "...the LORD is one."
Sounds consistent with the Trinity to me.
http://www.youversion.com/notes/30924

>
Yes, one God, three persons.

>
>
> >Matthew 28:19
> >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> > baptizing them in the name
> > of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>
> Notice it just names 3 items. It doesn't say they are are co-equal or
> part of some false post-Biblical Trinity doctrine.
>
> If i said: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph", does that make them a Trinity?
>

There are three names there while in Matt 28:19
the Name is singular, three persons.

>
>
> >Notice: Name singular, three persons.
>
> >HaShem - ????
>
> >By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
>
> >HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-
> >vav-hey (???? YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally
> >means The Name.
>
> >http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html
>
> Apparently they still have that old superstition of not pronouncing
> the divine name. Yet God included it in His written word around 7000
> times. Looks like He wants us to use it, doesn't it. KJV Ps 83:18,
>
> "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
> most high over all the earth."
>

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had
no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced
originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have
written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name
should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Shortly before the first century A.D., it became common for Jews to
avoid saying the divine name for fear of misusing it and breaking the
second commandment ("You shall not take the name of the Lord, your
God, in vain," Dt 5:11). Whenever they read Scripture aloud and
encountered the divine name, they substituted another Hebrew word,
"Adonai" (which means "Lord" or "my Lord"), in its place.

Eventually Hebrew developed written vowels, which appeared as small
marks called vowel points and were placed above and below the
consonants of a word. In the sixth or seventh century some Jews began
to place the vowel points for "Adonai" over the consonants for
"Yahweh" to remind the reader of Scripture to say "Adonai" whenever he
read "Yahweh."

About the 13th century the term "Jehovah" appeared when Christian
scholars took the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced it with the
vowels of "Adonai." This resulted in the sound "Yahowah," which has a
Latinized spelling of "Jehovah." The first recorded use of this
spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in
1270.

Interestingly, this fact is admitted in much Jehovah's Witness
literature, such as their Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 885). This is
surprising because Jehovah's Witnesses loathe the Catholic Church and
have done everything in their power to strip their church of traces of
Catholicism. Despite this, their group's very name contains a Catholic
"invention," the name "Jehovah."

Jehovah's Witnesses blast orthodox Christendom for "hiding the name of
God" by replacing "Jehovah" with "the Lord" whenever "Jehovah" appears
in Scripture. They charge this is a Jewish "superstition" that
dishonors God (which it does not). Yet their own organization has a
name that was invented as a result of the same thinking that produced
use of "the Lord."

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah

Maybe, you should take the Scripture seriouly that says

Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain.

Using a name invented in the 13th century
INMOHO breaks that commandment.

[Onion]

On May 16, 10:47 pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a705-
> ffa7fe18c...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

>
> > It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> > the worlds
>
> Why are they named after Roman gods then?

Who "they"? Clarify your thought on this Sir

[Onion]

On May 16, 11:40 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

And that is the lie you have been telling yourself to indulge
yourself in homosexuality. KEEP fooling yourself

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 20, 9:19 am, Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 10:47 pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a705-
> > ffa7fe18c...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> > > the worlds
>
> > Why are they named after Roman gods then?
>
> Who "they"? Clarify your thought on this Sir
>

Duh! The Planets,
Mercury,Venus,Terra,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,
Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<99e7161e-90b2-4f75...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 9:19=A0am, Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:

> > On May 16, 10:47=A0pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a705-
> > > ffa7fe18c...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> > > > the worlds
> >
> > > Why are they named after Roman gods then?
> >
> > Who "they"? Clarify your thought on this Sir
> >
> Duh! The Planets,
> Mercury,Venus,Terra,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,
> Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
>

• Earth is the name of some god?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 20, 1:51 pm, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article
> <99e7161e-90b2-4f75-bacd-c93f62b8a...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > On May 20, 9:19=A0am, Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 16, 10:47=A0pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a705-
> > > > ffa7fe18c...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> > > > > the worlds
>
> > > > Why are they named after Roman gods then?
>
> > > Who "they"? Clarify your thought on this Sir
>
> >     Duh! The Planets,
> >     Mercury,Venus,Terra,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,
> >     Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
>
> •  Earth is the name of some god?

Tellus, also called Terra Mater, ancient Roman earth goddess.
Probably of great antiquity, she was concerned with the productivity
of the earth and was later identified with the mother-goddess Cybele.
Her temple on the Esquiline Hill dated from about 268 bc. Though she
had no special priest, she was honoured in the Fordicidia and
Sementivae festivals, both of which centred on fertility and good
crops.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/586397/Tellus

[Olrik]

Le 2013-05-20 10:22, Onion a �crit :

> On May 16, 11:40 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Le 2013-05-16 12:09, Onion a �crit :

Why are supposedly religious people the most immoral persons around? Why
do they feel the need to be dishonest and deceitful?

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<050e918e-7c6c-4582...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 1:51=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <99e7161e-90b2-4f75-bacd-c93f62b8a...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> > > On May 20, 9:19=3DA0am, Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 16, 10:47=3DA0pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in news:b0485bb0-3e65-4462-a70=

> 5-
> > > > > ffa7fe18c...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > > > It is true, the mystery of our FAITH...Our Lord rules
> > > > > > the worlds
> >
> > > > > Why are they named after Roman gods then?
> >
> > > > Who "they"? Clarify your thought on this Sir
> >

> > > =A0 =A0 Duh! The Planets,
> > > =A0 =A0 Mercury,Venus,Terra,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,
> > > =A0 =A0 Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
> >
> > =95 =A0Earth is the name of some god?

>
> Tellus, also called Terra Mater, ancient Roman earth goddess.
> Probably of great antiquity, she was concerned with the productivity
> of the earth and was later identified with the mother-goddess Cybele.

*** thanks.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <r-2005131...@10.0.1.3>, RLMeasures <r...@somis.org> wrote:
...

>> Duh! The Planets,
>> Mercury,Venus,Terra,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn,
>> Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
>>
>� Earth is the name of some god?

A good trivia question is: Which planet(s) is/are not named after a Roman
God?

The canonical answer is 1 (Earth), but that may not be right if the poster
who told us all about "Tellus" (From which we get "Terra", as in "Terra
Haute" (Indiana)). But the other answer is Uranus - which is, in fact,
named after a Greek God (look it up).

So, the answer is 1 or 2, depending on whether you accept Earth.

--
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who to the
beholder?s eyes will seem like sprinkled pearls. When you gaze upon that
scene, you will behold a kingdom blissful and glorious."

--- Qur'an 76:19 ---

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Again, it doesn't say they are co-equal, does it.

JW's didn't invent the name "Jehovah", it was around long before they
became incorporated. See the 1600's KJV Bible at Ps 83:18.

>
> http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
>
> Maybe, you should take the Scripture seriouly that says
>
>Exodus 20:7
>Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
> for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
>vain.
>
> Using a name invented in the 13th century
> INMOHO breaks that commandment.

Then why don't all the churches today put the divine name in their
Bibles as Yahweh? Why did God put it in His writings around 7000
times, if not to be used?

Replacing YHWH with "LORD" or "God" is tampering with the scriptures.
That is breaking the commands of the NT.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:01:57 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
>>On May 19, 8:58 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

Get a room where people won't see your mutual masturbation.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

No, it is showing respect. When one is
unsure of someones name, you call them
Sir. Doesn't God deserve at least that much respect?

You have been warned,now you are without excuse!

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

You said above "These records indicate that in all likelihood the name
should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Then should not Christendom's Bibles use the closest name, or it might
even be the real name, or at least use the Tetragrammaton in their
Bibles? (YHWH) But INSERTING words is tampering with the Holy
Scriptures.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org








>

> You have been warned,now you are without excuse!

If God wanted us to know exactly

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Your Columbia heights cult uses a name we know
is wrong. Christians use what Abraham used
in Genesis 18
3 And said , My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away , I pray thee, from thy servant:

The word used by Abraham is adonay.
or in English Lord.
http://classic.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=0136

So,Christians are Biblical, your cult isn't,
but I know you won't be a man and admit
you are wrong.

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:51:26 AM UTC-4, Mike Painter wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:47 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> The LAW/TORAH dictated to Moses by God and secured in the ARK
>
> >> of COVENANT has NO contradiction.
>
> >
>
> >Anyone found that «ark» yet?
>
>
>
>
>

> Of course. It is located directly under the site of the crucifixion
>
> and has some of Christ's dried blood on it.
>
>
>
> You will find all the details, along with drawings and models at
>
> http://www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/
>
>
>
> It is on the Internet so must be true.

Bone jawr.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 16 May, 05:50, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 May, 11:47, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>

> Does it not also say the same in the Torah?
>
Indeed those words are in the Torah, your silence won't make it
otherwise.

>
> > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by the Pope in the 11th century?????
>

> How then, do you explain the war fought by your ancestors to rid the
> "promised land" of its legitimate occupants?
>
No disrespect intended, but failure to address this question would
suggest to many you shouldn't criticize those who fought the Crusades.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no other gods before me".
>
> > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore divine?
>
> > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
> > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?

Doesn't the Golden Calf spring to mind as well?

[hypatiab7]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:08:41 PM UTC-4, Onion wrote:
> On May 14, 1:17 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > JESUS IS THE GOD WHO GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.
>
> >
>
> > > This is what is concealed in the writings
>
> >
>
> > It is well-concealed.Jews don't see it at all.
>
> But Saint Paul in his epistle to the Roman informed us, regarding the
>
> Jews unbelief that
>
> there was a mystery being played out. See Roman 11

Yup. They were wondering how long you idiots were going
to fall for a bunch of recombined mythologies.

[Joe Bruno]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:56:06 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:108e81cf-8b52-4df5...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>
>
> >> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> >>
>
> >> >news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:

>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote
>
> >:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> >
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the
>
> >> >>> > > Ten
>
> >>
>
> >> >>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> Yet both Jews and Christians kill.
>
> >
>
> > The original Hebrew did not say "kill". It said "Thou shalt not
>
> > murder", which is a different thing entirely.The different wording
>
> > allows capital punishment and defensive wars and self-defense.
>
>
>
>
>
> When Moses ordered unarmed people to be
>
> killed was it murder or self-defense?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then Moses said to the Levites, "This is what the LORD, the
>
> God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side.
>
> Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other,
>
> each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The
>
> Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three
>
> thousand of the people died.
>
> Exodus 32

How do you know they were unarmed?

[Joe Bruno]

It was capital punishment.The crime was idolatry.

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:28:10 AM UTC-7, Mike Painter wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
>
> <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.
>
> >
>
> >The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to teach.
>
> >They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on and on about
>
> >the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the theory of evolution.
>
> >
>
> >Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology, Paleontology,
>
> >and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was known about these
>
> >things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000 years after Genesis was written.
>
> >
>
> >Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.
>
> >
>
> Can you list any atheists who have disagreed with what you say here?

Buddikka.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
33:20,

"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV)

God is so great (the creator of all those suns out there, etc) that
human eyes can't take His literal presence. Only spirit beings can see
Him as He is.

Thus Abraham was tending to angels, not God Himself. Angels were many
times sent as messengers for God. As Paul put it at He 13:2,

"Don't forget to be kind to strangers, for some who have done this
have entertained angels without realizing it! " (Living Bible)

A footnote on Ge 18:3 says, "This is the first of 134 places where the
Jewish Sopherim changed YHWH to �Adho�nai'. This substitution was made
out of misapplied reverence for God�s name. See App 1B. (NWT)

Thus it should read: "Then he said: �Jehovah, if, now, I have found
favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant."
(NWT)

More on the Jewish Sopherim:

"Lists that were too long for the margins were moved to another
section of the manuscript. For example, the Masoretic note in the side
margin of Genesis 18:3 shows three Hebrew letters, ???. This is the
Hebrew equivalent of the number 134. In another section of the
manuscript, a list appears indicating 134 places where pre-Masoretic
copyists had deliberately removed the name Jehovah from the Hebrew
text, replacing it with the word �Lord.� Although aware of these
changes, the Masoretes did not take the liberty of altering the text
handed down to them. Instead, they indicated these changes in their
marginal notes" (1995 Watchtower, 9/15, p. 28)


According to a web page describing the book "Criticisms of the Bible",
it lists the 134 places where they substituted YHWH for "Lord". (this
is NOT a JW site):

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZbWPcM6o-WUC&pg=PA181&dq=ge+18:3+YHWH&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6vWdUan9E7eu4AOfqYDYDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ge%2018%3A3%20YHWH&f=false

Now you know something that a lot of religious people don't know.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:fa1f5097-4d6c-4976-b7ed-
a227c2...@googlegroups.com:

Why were they murdered?

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:845951d1-fcfe-4edb-b07a-
7d48ba...@googlegroups.com:

Where is that listed as a captital offense?

[Joe Bruno]

I don't know.Why is it necessary that it be "listed" as such?

[Joe Bruno]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:29:53 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:54 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >JW's believe Jesus was the first of the creations by God because of
>
> >the CONTEXT of Col 1:15. Let's look at verses 15 and 16 together.
>
>
>
> That's their problem - but when they can't keep this bullshit where it
>
> belongs, they FIRST have to demonstrate this hypothetical god is more
>
> than just a figment of their deluded imagination.
>
>
>
> [Bible verses the moron is also too stupid to realise have no
>
> authority until he demonstrates they do, deleted]
>
>
>
> Who the fuck does the moron imagine would give a shit about what JWs
>
> belief if they kept it to themselves, and if they didn't refuse proper
>
> medical treatment to their children?

Are you exercising censorship again?

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:670aeadc-7025-45a7...@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:16:22 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:845951d1-fcfe-4edb-b07a-
>>
>> 7d48ba...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> Then Moses said to the Levites, "This is what the LORD, the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> thousand of the people died.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Exodus 32
>>
>> >
>>
>> > It was capital punishment.The crime was idolatry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is that listed as a captital offense?
>
> I don't know.Why is it necessary that it be "listed" as such?

If they didn't commit a crime why did
your god order them to be killed?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 23, 6:10 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
33:20,
"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV) "

You love selective quoting,

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
[1] for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his
friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the
son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,
whom the LORD knew face to face,

Definition of THEOPHANY
: a visible manifestation of a deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theophany

Chapter 18: The Theophany at Mamre

Abraham's Theophany of the Lord at the grove of Mamre was a visitation
that had an impact on all of salvation history. It was in this
uniquely personal visit that Yahweh announced to his faithful servant
that the time had come for the birth of the promised son (Gen 17:19).
The Catechism addresses these remarkable visual experiences with the
Divine as markers that point to the coming of the Redeemer-Messiah:
Theophanies (manifestations of God) light up the way of the promise,
from the patriarchs to Moses and from Joshua to the visions that
inaugurated the missions of the great prophets. Christian tradition
has always recognized that God's Word allowed himself to be seen and
heard in these theophanies, in which the cloud of the Holy Spirit both
revealed him and concealed him in its shadow (CCC 707).

Please read Genesis 18:1-8: The Visitation of the Lord
18:1Yahweh appeared to him at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by
the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2He
looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as
he saw them he ran from the entrance to the tent to greet them, and
bowed to the ground. 3'My lord,' he said, 'if I find favor with you,
please do not pass your servant by

Some of fathers of the Church (especially the Eastern fathers) have
seen the visitation of the three "men" as a manifestation of the Most
Holy Trinity

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_10.htm


Philo who lived Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born
15–10 bc, Alexandria—died ad 45–50,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
also saw a type of Trinity in those verses.

Philo writes:

...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm

Look we know you got the Name of the Lord wrong
because you get Jahovah by using the vowals
for Adonai. Tey, your cult won't change the name
showing they are false witnesses.

jomas(notice the wrong vowels) you just can never
accept being wrong.

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly;[1]
but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Don't be like Belshazzar

Daniel 5:22
And thou his son, O Belshazzar,
hast not humbled thine heart,
though thou knewest all this;

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:26:59 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>
>>>
>>> > It was capital punishment.The crime was idolatry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is that listed as a captital offense?
>>
>> I don't know.Why is it necessary that it be "listed" as such?

If it is not listed anywhere then Bruno can't claim it was a capital
crime.

>
> If they didn't commit a crime why did
>your god order them to be killed?

If you read the chapter you see that Moses asked this God to go easy.

32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth
thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth
out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

God did just that

32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto
his people. (Note that God does do evil things)

Unless parts were left out and God changed it's mind again it was
Moses, claiming to speak for God that got people killed.

32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put
every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate
throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his
companion, and every man his neighbour.

God just plagued them.
32:35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf,
which Aaron made.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:22 -0500, Mitchell Holman

<nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:845951d1-fcfe-4edb-b07a-
>7d48ba...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:56:06 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>
>>> news:108e81cf-8b52-4df5...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:17:14 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:51:42 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >news:a581f9a5-8140-4606...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> On May 14, 8:46�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wr
>> ote
>>>
>>> >:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> > innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> >
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of
>the
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > Ten
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> >>> > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet both Jews and Christians kill.
>>> >
>>> > The original Hebrew did not say "kill". It said "Thou shalt not
>>> > murder", which is a different thing entirely.The different wording
>>> > allows capital punishment and defensive wars and self-defense.

Not according to Dan Barker...

Dan Barker checked all the words used for kill/slay/etc. From his
essay "Murder, she Wrote" in Losing Faith in Faith, copied without
permission, any typos are my own:

[begin insert]

Do the Ten Commandments really say "Thou shalt not murder"? The Hebrew
word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in
the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq). Depending on
which version you use there are about ten Hebrew words which are
translated "kill". The five most common, in Hebrew order (with
translation in order of King James frequency) are:

muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill
nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder
haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy
zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill
ratsach: (47) slay[23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death[1]

Modern preachers must be smarter than the Hebrew translators if they
claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq,
zabach and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an
imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way
modern writers will swap synonyms.

[end insert]

He then gives several examples, quoting chapter and verse, showing
both the modern translation and the original word used. It is clear
that if "ratsach" always means murder then the meanings of these
verses become completely different.

>>>
>>> When Moses ordered unarmed people to be
>>> killed was it murder or self-defense?
>>>
>>> Then Moses said to the Levites, "This is what the LORD, the
>>> God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side.
>>> Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other,
>>> each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The
>>> Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three
>>> thousand of the people died.
>>>
>>> Exodus 32
>>
>> It was capital punishment.The crime was idolatry.

Complete and utter bullshit.

> Where is that listed as a captital offense?

Because they attributed it to Bruno's pretend friend that made it OK.

Just like everything else they couldn't give a real reason or excuse
for doing.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Most likely it was when the ancestors of the Jews went from polytheist
to monotheist, and there was civil strife over it. The monotheist
faction slaughtered the polytheists and as we know, the victors write
the history.

[Adam]

Typical atheist desperation of making contradictions out of having laws
and enforcing them too. They cannot admit that they would rather follow
Satan's "natural" laws so they take ridiculous anarchist stances against
the laws of God and His Lord Jesus Christ. It is a beguiling way of
avoiding an appearance of a double standard. Atheists are deceivers.

--
Adam & Eve

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:10:04 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
>33:20,

Congratulations, you have found yet another contradiction.

>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>live."" (NIV)

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."

Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend."

Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee."

>God is so great (the creator of all those suns out there, etc) that
>human eyes can't take His literal presence. Only spirit beings can see
>Him as He is.

In the real world God remains a figment of your deluded imagination
until you demonstrate its real world existence.

>Thus Abraham was tending to angels, not God Himself. Angels were many
>times sent as messengers for God. As Paul put it at He 13:2,

Why do you talk outside your religion as if its fairy stories actually
happened?

>"Don't forget to be kind to strangers, for some who have done this
>have entertained angels without realizing it! " (Living Bible)

Idiot.

[Mitchell Holman]

Adam <adam7days6000y...@gmail.com> wrote in news:knlkfp$kkp$1
@dont-email.me:

Evasion noted. Just tell us why God ordered
Hebrews to kill fellow Hebrews.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <knlkfp$kkp$1...@dont-email.me>,

Since we don't believe in Satan any more than we believe in god, how can
we follow it?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

Typical Christian lie about those who don't fall for their fantasies
and have a more realistic view of history.

We're not the ones who have anything to be desperate about.

Because no matter how seriously you take that bullshit, it is merely
somebody else's religious belief we wouldn't give a flying fuck about
if you had the intelligence to keep it where it belongs.

> They cannot admit that they would rather follow
>Satan's "natural" laws so they take ridiculous anarchist stances against
>the laws of God and His Lord Jesus Christ.

Where did you demonstrate that your hypothetical Satan, your equally
hypothetical God and your equally hypothetical "Lord Jesus Christ"
were anything more than your deluded fantasies in order to have laws?

> It is a beguiling way of
>avoiding an appearance of a double standard.

Any lie rather even try to understand the real world beyond your
religion's mythology, and the people in it.

> Atheists are deceivers.

You kind of Christian is a thoroughly nasty, stupid, barefaced liar.

And in your case, certifiably insane,

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 15:52:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Typical Christian lie rather than take a more objective historical
view.

> Evasion noted. Just tell us why God ordered
>Hebrews to kill fellow Hebrews.

Don't expect any honesty or intelligence from this one. He's never
shown any in the past.

[Christopher A. Lee]

He's certifiably insane.

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:45:28 -0400, Adam
<adam7days6000y...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Typical atheist desperation of making contradictions out of having laws
>and enforcing them too. They cannot admit that they would rather follow
>Satan's "natural" laws

And your evidence for the existence for this "Satan" chap is what,
exactly?

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:36:13 -0500, Don Martin
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:45:28 -0400, Adam
><adam7days6000y...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Typical atheist desperation of making contradictions out of having laws
>>and enforcing them too. They cannot admit that they would rather follow
>>Satan's "natural" laws
>
>And your evidence for the existence for this "Satan" chap is what,
>exactly?

I honestly don't understand why so many Christians have to be so
nastily dishonest - I simply looked at it in an historical perspective
rather than a fundamentalist and literalist one.

In the real world, his hypothetical god doesn't make laws - its
followers do that claiming it told them what to do.

Which is hardly rocket science.

[Adam]

What evasion would that be?

> Just tell us why God ordered
> Hebrews to kill fellow Hebrews.
>

God was going to kill them all and rebuild the entire nation from Moses,
but instead He punished them by ordering this execution. Surely that's
clear.

>
>


--
Adam & Eve

[Adam]

Thank you for making my point.


--
Adam & Eve