Pray for the peace of Jerusalem
::: Jesus is LORD :::
the thrones of the house of David.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
they shall prosper that love thee.
Peace be within thy walls,
and prosperity within thy palaces.
For my brethren and companions' sakes,
I will now say, Peace be within thee.
Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.
(Psalms 122:5-9 KJV)
--
___________________________________________________
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de
http://the-beauty-of-the-psalms.blogspot.com
http://jesus-christ-is-my-lord-and-my-god.blogspot.com
http://bible-prophecy-and-revelation.blogspot.com/
Ike E 12/22/2009
" ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7pkgq3...@mid.individual.net...
> For there are set thrones of judgment,
>
> the thrones of the house of David.
>
> Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
>
> they shall prosper that love thee.
>
> Peace be within thy walls,
>
> and prosperity within thy palaces.
>
> For my brethren and companions' sakes,
>
> I will now say, Peace be within thee.
>
> Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.
>
> (Psalms 122:5-9 KJV)
Problem is, what YOU think is "Jerusalem" and "Israel" is not Jerusalem or
Israel.
Ike
Hiccum Blurpaedius
wrote:
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote in messagenews:7pkgq3...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > For there are set thrones of judgment,
>
> > the thrones of the house of David.
>
> > Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
>
> > they shall prosper that love thee.
>
> > Peace be within thy walls,
>
> > and prosperity within thy palaces.
>
> > For my brethren and companions' sakes,
>
> > I will now say, Peace be within thee.
>
> > Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.
>
> > (Psalms 122:5-9 KJV)
>
> Problem is, what YOU think is "Jerusalem" and "Israel" is not Jerusalem or
> Israel.
>
> Ike
It is spelled Jewrulsham and Isntreal.
US Marines are pussies
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e485572-1750-469c...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
[snippeth]
> It is spelled Jewrulsham and Isntreal.
> US Marines are pussies
Forward your real name and address and let's find out.
[snippeth]
Ike
::: Jesus is LORD :::
hhn5n4$v1c$1...@news.eternal-september.org
You always claim to know better than Paul, too...
Ike, are you blind? Can you not read???
Why do you ignore almost a whole chapter of the Bible??? I can tell you,
it is because you are a false teacher. You may ignore the following, but
I hope the reader does not, and all see what a liar you are:
Romans 11:1-32 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an
Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what
the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against
Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what
saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according
to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise
work is no more work.
(7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but
the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (8) (According
as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
(9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be
darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for
to provoke them to jealousy.
(12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the
diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their
fulness? (13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle
of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may
provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of
them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
(16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the
root be holy, so are the branches.
(17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree;
(18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.
(19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in. (20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and
thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: (21) For if God
spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
(22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
(23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
(24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much
more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their
own olive tree?
(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in
part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in.
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
(28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (30) For
as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
through their unbelief: (31) Even so have these also now not believed,
that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
(32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have
mercy upon all.
*+*^+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*
Again, Ike, read this form the verses above:
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
Now tell us why you think you know better than Paul!
Ike E 1/2/2010
> Ike E 12/22/2009 xhermanei...@gmail.com wrote in
> hhn5n4$v1c$1...@news.eternal-september.org
>> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:7pkgq3...@mid.individual.net...
>>> For there are set thrones of judgment,
>>>
>>> the thrones of the house of David.
>>>
>>> Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
>>>
>>> they shall prosper that love thee.
>>>
>>> Peace be within thy walls,
>>>
>>> and prosperity within thy palaces.
>>>
>>> For my brethren and companions' sakes,
>>>
>>> I will now say, Peace be within thee.
>>>
>>> Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.
>>>
>>> (Psalms 122:5-9 KJV)
>>
>> Problem is, what YOU think is "Jerusalem" and "Israel" is not
>> Jerusalem or Israel.
>>
>> Ike
>
> You always claim to know better than Paul, too...
No, BECAUSE of Paul (and Jesus, and John), you idiot.
> Ike, are you blind? Can you not read???
Can you?
Go back and read Jesus' condemnation on the "children of Abraham" who were
not the RIGHT "children of Abraham."
Go back and read Paul's two dissertations on who IS "Israel" and who is NOT
"Israel."
Go back and read John's Revelation.
> Why do you ignore almost a whole chapter of the Bible???
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT?
> I can tell you,
You can't "tell" me anything, you ignorant twat.
> it is because you are a false teacher.
No, YOU are the "false teachers," oh, ignorant one.
> You may ignore the following, but
> I hope the reader does not, and all see what a liar you are:
LOL
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO TELL "ISRAEL" FROM "NOT ISRAEL," SO HOW WOULD YOU
KNOW WHO AND WHAT PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT?
> Romans 11:1-32 KJV
>
> I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an
> Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
That's right: Paul was one of the few REAL Israelites who were left by the
time Jesus came.
> (2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
FOREKNEW. FROM THE PAST. THE OLD TESTAMENT ISRAELITES. THE REAL ONES. NOT
THE FAKE ONES, i.e. THE "RABBINICAL" JEWS.
> Wot ye not what
> the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against
> Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
> thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what
> saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven
> thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Great. Now you've read whom Paul is talking about--THE REMNANT. NOT THESE
FAKE JEWS RUNNING AROUND, BUT THE REAL ONES, i.e. THE REMNANT GOD HAS
RESERVED TO HIMSELF, AND HIDDEN IN THE NATIONS.
> (5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according
> to the election of grace.
Right. THE 144,000, whom GOD HAS HIDDEN FOR HIS PURPOSES, whom He will BRING
FORTH TO THWART THE "JEWS WHO SAY THEY ARE JEWS, AND ARE NOT, BUT DO LIE"
WHEN THE TIME COMES, i.e WHEN THEY REBUILD THE TEMPLE, REJECTING CHRIST AS
HIS TEMPLE (and His followers are the "holy city," NOT built with brick and
mortar, but BY THE HAND OF GOD).
Great. This is why John documents TWO origins of the demons in Revelation:
HALF come from Israelites that will be CAST DOWN, and half are Gentiles who
said they were Christians and where not, and will be brought up from BELOW.
And who is grafted into the empty spaces?
The REAL Christians.
> (22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
> fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his
> goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
>
> (23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
> graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
>
> (24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
> and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much
> more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their
> own olive tree?
>
> (25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
> mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in
> part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
> in.
>
> (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
> come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
> Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
> their sins.
Yes, all "Israelites" that are REALLY Israelites "will be saved."
And the FAKES will be CAST DOWN.
> (28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
> touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
>
> (29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (30) For
> as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
> through their unbelief: (31) Even so have these also now not believed,
> that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
>
> (32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have
> mercy upon all.
[snip]
> Again, Ike, read this form the verses above:
Hey, moron: Go back and read JESUS', PAUL'S, AND JOHN'S DISSERTATIONS ON WHO
IS AND WHO IS NOT "ISRAEL."
You are in for an unpleasant surprise: YOU AND YOUR ILK HAVE SWITCHED THE
TWO.
> (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
> come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
> Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
> their sins.
>
> Now tell us why you think you know better than Paul!
One more time for the moron: Not BETTER than Paul; BECAUSE of Paul.
You people don't have a CLUE as to what's going on here.
Ike
Linda Lee
wrote:
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote in messagenews:7qg769...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
And Ike, the accuser of all the brethren who believe in Christ as God
incarnate as the Saviour, rears his ugly head again. It is obvious you
are a child of the devil; you are revealed by who you attack, and
you've repeatedly attacked nearly every believer who posts on these
boards as either a moron or an idiot.
The only two people I've seen you post to and NOT attack are Snow/
Snowjob the antichrist, and Rod the God-hater/denier. You are revealed
by your targets, as well as your friends, you moronic satan.
r m
wrote:
> Ike E 12/22/2009 xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com wrote in
> hhn5n4$v1...@news.eternal-september.org
>
>
>
> > " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Does that include Jews living abroad?
::: Jesus is LORD :::
d21d970d-3531-482a...@y23g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Eh?
Read verse 26. All Israel is all Israel - all the offsprings of Jacob.
Also:
Who is Israel?
---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8565846164875548672#
r m
wrote:
> r m roym...@gmail.com wrote in
> d21d970d-3531-482a-8f7f-455f22c17...@y23g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
I take it then; it's true Israel than ethnic Israel.
If it means anything:
That site is pro Adventism "We concur along with our Adventist
pioneers, including Ellen White, that the correct interpretations of
the major prophecies of Daniel" http://www.remnantofgod.org/statementoffaith.htm#inter-DANIEL
.
I
>> Romans 11:1-32 KJV
...
> Does that include Jews living abroad?
I wouldn't know as it was written in King Jimmy rather than the Queen's
English. Let's try afresh with a readable version ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 11 (Today's New International Version)
Romans 11
The Remnant of Israel
1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite
myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not
reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what Scripture says in
the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 "Lord,
they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one
left, and they are trying to kill me" [a]? 4 And what was God's answer to
him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee
to Baal." [b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by
grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were,
grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not
obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is
written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day." [c]
9 And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever." [d]
Ingrafted Branches
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles
to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the
world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches
will their fullness bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the
Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow
arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their
rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be
but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits
is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the
branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild
olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the
nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be
superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not
support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches
were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were
broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant,
but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not
spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to
those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his
kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist
in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in
again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by
nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree,
how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into
their own olive tree!
All Israel Will Be Saved
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters,
so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a
hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and
in this way [e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is [f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins." [g]
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake;
but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the
patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you
who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result
of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order
that they too may now [h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.
32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy
on them all.
Doxology
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and [i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?" [j]
35 "Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?" [k]
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Footnotes:
1.. Romans 11:3 1 Kings 19:10,14
2.. Romans 11:4 1 Kings 19:18
3.. Romans 11:8 Deut. 29:4; Isaiah 29:10
4.. Romans 11:10 Psalm 69:22,23
5.. Romans 11:26 Or and so
6.. Romans 11:27 Or will be
7.. Romans 11:27 Isaiah 59:20,21; 27:9 (see Septuagint); Jer. 31:33,34
8.. Romans 11:31 Some manuscripts do not have now.
9.. Romans 11:33 Or riches and the wisdom and the
10.. Romans 11:34 Isaiah 40:13
11.. Romans 11:35 Job 41:11
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r m
So, when it says "all Israel will be saved" v.26, that would be ethnic
Israelites (irrespective where they are in the world).
Cheers
r m
::: Jesus is LORD :::
r m
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 3:53 pm, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
> >> r m roym...@gmail.com wrote in
> >> d21d970d-3531-482a-8f7f-455f22c17...@y23g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> On Jan 5, 6:14 pm, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
> >>> <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>>> Ike E 12/22/2009 xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com wrote in
> >>>> hhn5n4$v1...@news.eternal-september.org
>
> >>>>> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote in
No worries. Not that all their stuff is wrong or not useful. Having
said that your link to http://bit.ly/Jesus-Who in another thread is
commended as a source closer to orthodoxy.
But watching that SDA vid link: they kept on talking about the 'true
Israel' and making apologies for appearing to be anti-Semitic. I
weren't too sure they were saying what you wanted to convey, given
your passion for ethnic Israel.
Cheers
r m
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Linda Lee" <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:de361da8-573c-41d8...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> And Ike, the accuser of all the brethren who believe in Christ as God
> incarnate as the Saviour, rears his ugly head again.
The "ugly head" is all yours, Satan.
Jesus taught the Gospel of Grace, as assumed by Paul.
You teach the satanic gospel of legalism.
> It is obvious you
> are a child of the devil; you are revealed by who you attack, and
> you've repeatedly attacked nearly every believer who posts on these
> boards as either a moron or an idiot.
So far as I've seen, there are no "believers" on these boards other than
myself. It's just an endless parade of one cultist after another,
demonstrating the divisions that are laid out in the seven letters of
Revelation.
> The only two people I've seen you post to and NOT attack are Snow/
> Snowjob the antichrist, and Rod the God-hater/denier. You are revealed
> by your targets, as well as your friends, you moronic satan.
I don't waste time on obvious antichristians.
I go after those who would have people believe they are Christians when they
are not, but do lie (such as yourself), and would pollute any would-be
saints with their false doctrines.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
> Read verse 26. All Israel is all Israel - all the offsprings of Jacob.
That's NOT what Paul said, you ignorant sow. In fact, you're going out of
your way to DELIBERATELY IGNORE what Paul said IN THE SAME BOOK...
Rom 9:6-13
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not
all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, that
is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara
shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac--for the children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth--it was said unto her,
The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The people YOU think are "Israel" are, by-and-large, NOT Israel, but the
CHILDREN OF THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND HERODIANS, aka THE "JEWS."
In fact, it was a RARE THING for Jesus to FIND A REAL ISRAELITE IN HIS DAY.
THAT'S HOW FEW WERE LEFT.
But Satan has you Dipsysensationalist morons so turned around and twisted
that you are actually SUPPORTING Satan's agenda and SATAN'S CHILDREN.
Idiots.
> Also:
>
> Who is Israel?
>
> ---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8565846164875548672#
The author totally missed the point: There were very few Jews who were Jews
indeed by the time Jesus came, which is what Paul wrote of TWICE, as
declared by Jesus in Matthew, and reinforced by John in Revelation.
But, as I said, Satan has you Dipsysensationalist idiots so turned around
backwards that you're actually supporting SATAN'S mission to rebuild the
temple when GOD'S Temple--the collective body of believers--HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH ANY TEMPLE IN ISRAEL (other than the coming Day when the "Holy
Mountain," our Lord, will sit upon the "Holy Mountain," Zion, teaching the
nations.
In fact, John documents the mission of the Remnant to keep people AWAY from
the temple, and you idiots ARE HERALDING ITS RETURN...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samaritan] woman saith unto [Jesus], Sir, I perceive that thou art
a prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh [future tense],
when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh [future tense], and now is [present tense], when the
true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
Father seeketh such to worship him: God is a Spirit, and they that worship
him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
MAN, Satan has done a number on you people via false interpretations of
prophecy.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
"r m" <roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2274e445-c3de-4663...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I take it then; it's true Israel than ethnic Israel.
> If it means anything:
> That site is pro Adventism "We concur along with our Adventist
> pioneers, including Ellen White, that the correct interpretations of
> the major prophecies of Daniel"
> http://www.remnantofgod.org/statementoffaith.htm#inter-DANIEL
Give me a break: The idiot Adventists are nothing more than
hyper-Dipsysensationalists, and even dumber than your run-of-the-mill
Dipsysensationalists.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
> So, when it says "all Israel will be saved" v.26, that would be ethnic
> Israelites (irrespective where they are in the world).
No, but that's what Jewish ass-kissers like Mark T would have you believe.
Note the discussion of Romans 11 without any discussion of Romans 9.
In Romans 9, Paul delineates between true Israelites and frauds, just as
Jesus did, and just as John does in Revelation.
But frauds of all sorts (for various personal reasons) would have you
falsely believe that every Jew is "Israel" when nothing could be farther
from the truth.
What they do is turn Paul's teachings around backwards: Paul was saying that
every Israelite THAT IS REALLY AN ISRAELITE (past, present, and future) will
be saved, NOT that every mangy mutt that CALLS themselves "an Israelite"
will be saved.
Huge difference.
But these fools would have you believe that the old, national Israel will be
"saved" when, in fact, it will be an ENTIRELY NEW ISRAEL ALTOGETHER that is
coming, born from the first two, but neither (as a child is of his or her
father and mother, but essentially neither).
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
"I" <itsme@home000000000000091> wrote in message
news:4b57e7bf$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Note no discussion of Romans 9, Galatians 4, John 8, or Revelation, all of
which make a HUGE difference in how you read Romans 11.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> So, when it says "all Israel will be saved" v.26,
> that would be ethnic Israelites (irrespective of
> where they are in the world).
Roy, I know that you are just probing his beliefs
and I mean no disrespect. I am merely seeking
to add another take on your statement and his. :)
The problem with your statement, is that it, as do
the statements of others, excludes the context and
forgets altogether about a word that completely
changes the meaning of that verse!
You see, people tend to read it as if it says:
"and *THEN*, all Israel will be saved"
...which is where your version which leaves it out
altogether comes from and thus, one could indeed
argue that maybe it is about national Israel.
But in reality, it says, "and *SO*, all Israel will be saved"
...which is quite different! :)
You see Roy, that word, translated to "so", is "houto"
from the Greek and literally means, "in this manner".
So what Paul actually said was, "and in this manner,
all Israel will be saved".
Well this begs the question... "What manner?".
Well, the manner that was just described, amen? :)
And what manner was that? Simple! :)
The first thing we have to understand, is that we
cannot remove the context of the entire letter from
the discussion. And when we consider the entire
context of Paul's discussion on Israel being saved,
we find that he referenced it earlier in his letter
and clearly stated that it would not be all of Israel
as a national entity, where he talks about the entire
saved people, as both Jews and Gentiles and puts
them all into the same box and says that it is only
a remnant of national Israel that would be saved:
Romans 9:26-27
26) And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place
where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people;
there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the
number of the children of Israel be as the sand of
the sea, A REMNANT shall be saved.
Now read Romans 11 and compare it to the above,
considering what the word "so" actually means:
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise
in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in.
26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
So what is the "manner" that Paul described?
Well, it is listed out for us right there! :)
1) Some of national Israel is saved.
2) The fulness of the Gentiles (whatever
number that is) is saved.
This adds up to "all Israel" being saved.
"And in this manner, all Israel shall be saved."
We cannot forget "the manner"! :)
Furthermore, we must look at the following:
We cannot ignore what words actually mean and what
Scripture actually says, just to hang on to a doctrine.
That is nothing more than someone placing their doctrine
over Scripture and filtering Scripture though their doctrine;
interpreting Scripture by their doctrine, instead of what is
proper, which is the opposite, which is what they falsely
claim to do! (:
Let us also not forget the following and let us remember,
that to hold to the doctrine that the Dispensationalists do,
means to pit these Scriptures against Romans 11:25-26a,
while completely ignoring Romans 9:26-27!
And notice that the Dispy's will try to say, "But look at
the next verse!", as if it somehow cancels out the one
before it! In other words, their interpretations do not
reconcile all of the relevant verses, but rather, pit them
against each other. How is that proper interpretation?
Look at these other Scriptures and see if they in any way
line up with the type of "It's gonna be all about the Jews
getting restored (and especially their legal system, which
denies Christ's sacrifice)!" thinking that the Dispy's hold:
"Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of
the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." - Rom 3:29
"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?" - Rom 9:24
"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:
For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."
- Rom 10:12
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:28
And let us read through Galatians 3-4 and we can see
that this thinking that the Jews and the return of the
Mosaic system is an abomination before God and not
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who said what He said to
Jews! So why do they try to exclude Jews from that
and place them up on a pedestal, above Christ's words?!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Christians, keep the faith -- but not from others!
Thommadura
> On Jan 5, 7:42 am, "Ike E 1/2/2010"<xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"<jesus-is-l...@lycos.com> wrote in messagenews:7qg769...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>
> And Ike, the accuser of all the brethren who believe in Christ as God
> incarnate as the Saviour, rears his ugly head again. It is obvious you
> are a child of the devil; you are revealed by who you attack, and
> you've repeatedly attacked nearly every believer who posts on these
> boards as either a moron or an idiot.
And Linda Lee - has decided that SHE alone has the right to JUDGE Ike -
even when her own religion tells her NOT TO.
Why bother believe in religion when those who do OPENLY ignore what it says.
®
r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That site is pro Adventism
And you are a pro-heretic hypocrite, as evidenced by your
fraternization with people who routinely blaspheme Jesus, claim
He is a sinful man, and who promote and defend immorality (e.g.
<4a81...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> (http://bit.ly/5gNQkG)), refusing to
say a single word against it, while you publicly criticize nearly
every word that comes out of the mouth of anyone who dares to
notice or defend the fundamentals of the faith against such attacks.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Thommadura
> On Wed, 01/20/10, at 11:15:36PM,
> r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That site is pro Adventism
>
>
> And you are a pro-heretic hypocrite, as evidenced by your fraternization
> with people who routinely blaspheme Jesus, claim He is a sinful man, and
> who promote and defend immorality (e.g. <4a81...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> (http://bit.ly/5gNQkG)), refusing to say a single word against it, while
> you publicly criticize nearly every word that comes out of the mouth of
> anyone who dares to notice or defend the fundamentals of the faith
> against such attacks.
>
SInce no one has proven any supernatural god - at all - then your
statement about being heretical is nonsense.
THe fundamentals of your faith is BELIEF - not truth - and is
contradicted not only by the scripture of your belief itself - but also
by that of hundreds of thousands of TRUE gods of other religions.
That theists like you have no absolute proof of your beliefs is without
question - you cannot even get chrsitianity to agree - since there are
over 39,000 different sects of that alone - only connected by the \name
of one of their gods.
Thommadura
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"<jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:7rq4u5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Read verse 26. All Israel is all Israel - all the offsprings of Jacob.
>
> That's NOT what Paul said,
Why would anyone care what a person who could NOT have been an eye
witness says to begin with?
Without any identification for the quotes he claims - his statements
MIGHT be hearsay at best - and are just as likely to be fraud.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
QtudnaMumv-J0cXW...@giganews.com
> On Wed, 01/20/10, at 11:15:36PM,
> r m <roy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That site is pro Adventism
>
>
> And you are a pro-heretic hypocrite, as evidenced by your
> fraternization with people who routinely blaspheme Jesus, claim
> He is a sinful man, and who promote and defend immorality (e.g.
> <4a81...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> (http://bit.ly/5gNQkG)), refusing to
> say a single word against it, while you publicly criticize nearly
> every word that comes out of the mouth of anyone who dares to
> notice or defend the fundamentals of the faith against such attacks.
Correct.
r m
> > That site is pro Adventism
>
> And you are a pro-heretic hypocrite, as evidenced by your
> fraternization with people who routinely blaspheme Jesus, claim
> He is a sinful man, and who promote and defend immorality (e.g.
> say a single word against it, while you publicly criticize nearly
> every word that comes out of the mouth of anyone who dares to
> notice or defend the fundamentals of the faith against such attacks.
That's been raised before, so I'll leave it at that.
I came into this thread asking a simple question about Rom 11 and
salvation of [ethnic] Jews abroad. Discussions revolved around Rom 11
and Rom 9.
However, with Ps 122 and the subject line, I thought the original
poster had the cessation of conflict in modern Israel in mind. I
could be wrong, though.
Parry wrote a memorable setting of Ps 122 oft sung in English
cathedrals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rLZ09s7QGk .
Cheers
r m
r m
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:45:36 -0800 (PST), r m <roym...@gmail.com>
Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
What would you make of Ps 122 and present day Jerusalem [or Israel]?
Cheers
r m
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
Yes and the national part that was to be saved,
was "the remnant" spoken of in ch 11.
> What would you make of Ps 122 and present day
> Jerusalem [or Israel]?
I don't. The truth is, Israel is not "at peace".
It is in a constant state of war, is it not?
Also, Psalm 122 speaks of the tribes going up
to the Lord, the thrones of judgment (of the
house of David), etc..
This speaks of a Godly government. But the
reality is, it is no such thing. As I said in my
other post in another thread, what people
are doing here, is preaching Futurist belief
and then reading it back into the situation
today, but it simply does not apply.
Israel right now has no concept of God ruling
things. They have a secular government.
In fact, even though they do also have what's
called a "religious court" for certain marital
matters and so forth, the majority is handled
by the secular court and furthermore, even
in these so called "religious courts", all judges
are civil servants who must uphold general
law in their tribunals. So no, it really isn't
a "religious" court. It's more of a show
and their government is a secular one and
again, that's just for marriage issues and
the people are not even required to take
that avenue, but even if they do, as I said,
they're really dealing with civil servants,
who must uphold secular the civil laws.
But isn't it amazing that Futurists look at other
governments and talk about how they are
headed for destruction because they're secular
and don't honor God and point their finger at
them as evil and yet, when it comes to Israel,
they'll not hear of it! They have nothing but
praise for Israel and think everyone should
come to their defense, yet claim to believe
that other secular governments need to
either turn to God, or they should indeed
fail and be taken out! Hmmm...
And isn't it interesting that they call what Israel
has now "peace" when they want to claim the
prophecies of the Bible are being fulfilled today
and yet, claim that we need to back Israel up
in their war. What???
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
A clear conscience makes a soft pillow.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
> Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
Could you develop this a little more, please, Roy? I am not sure what to
make of that.
> What would you make of Ps 122 and present day Jerusalem [or Israel]?
Are you equalising Jerusalem and Israel there?
> Cheers
> r m
--
___________________________________________________
Find my site and blogs there...
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de
http://the-beauty-of-the-psalms.blogspot.com
http://bible-prophecy-and-revelation.blogspot.com/
r m
wrote:> 027df5b3-c3ac-4f34-9213-bc677376b...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>
> > Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>
> Could you develop this a little more, please, Roy? I am not sure what to
> make of that.
Others in this thread have labored well over that. The letter
addresses Jew/gentile divisions in Rome from the first chapter (e.g.
1:16) to the last (e.g. 16:17).
> > What would you make of Ps 122 and present day Jerusalem [or Israel]?
>
> Are you equalising Jerusalem and Israel there?
I was reflecting on vv.1-5 in that Jerusalem was the center of Israel
(religious, administrative, and legal).
Is the initial subject line and text that opens this thread referring
to ancient Jerusalem? or to present day Jerusalem?
Ike E 1/24/2010
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nk7ml5ptm0fmajvpp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:56:36 -0800 (PST), r m <roy...@gmail.com>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>> Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>
> Yes and the national part that was to be saved,
> was "the remnant" spoken of in ch 11.
Which will be OF both "national Israel" (as it "was") and spiritual Israel
(as it "is") to form A NEW THING ALTOGETHER IN THE END OF AGE.
Idiot: You know no more about God's plan than the people you accuse.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>On Jan 24, 9:16 am, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-is-l...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>> r m roym...@gmail.com wrote in
>> 027df5b3-c3ac-4f34-9213-bc677376b...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>>
>> > Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>>
>> Could you develop this a little more, please, Roy? I am not sure what to
>> make of that.
>
>Others in this thread have labored well over that. The letter
>addresses Jew/gentile divisions in Rome from the first chapter (e.g.
>1:16) to the last (e.g. 16:17).
And as I has said, the fact that Rom 9:27 tells us
that it would only be a remnant of the Jews that
would be saved.
>> > What would you make of Ps 122 and present day Jerusalem [or Israel]?
>>
>> Are you equalising Jerusalem and Israel there?
>
>I was reflecting on vv.1-5 in that Jerusalem was the center of Israel
>(religious, administrative, and legal).
>
>Is the initial subject line and text that opens this thread referring
>to ancient Jerusalem? or to present day Jerusalem?
My question to you is; Why do you automatically assume
that it's about "present day" Jerusalem?
No offense, but this is what Futurists do. And when
I point it out to them, they deny it and say that no,
the Bible says it is about us today! And yet, how did
you just start out? You read a chapter that doesn't
say one word about it being about "us today" and
yet, you begin by asking the question...
"What would you make of Ps 122 and present day
Jerusalem [or Israel]?"
It has nothing to do with present day Jerusalem,
or Israel. It doesn't say anything like that and
why... why would anyone just skip over thousands
of years of history, as if it didn't exist and just assume
that absolutely nothing could have happened until
now, today?!
The only thing relevant there, is that David says
to go to the temple and to pray for peace. Why
does that require it be about today, Roy???
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!"
Thommadura
People have been going to the temple and praying for peace for thousands
of years
YOU would think by know they would clearly see how futile the effort is.
Thommadura
Actually - that one is true
NOBODY actually knows anything about a god- it is ALL belief
duke
>People have been going to the temple and praying for peace for thousands
>of years
>YOU would think by know they would clearly see how futile the effort is.
They weren't involved in war, were they!!
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
ThomM
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:53:46 -0500, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >People have been going to the temple and praying for peace for thousands
> >of years
> >YOU would think by know they would clearly see how futile the effort is.
>
> They weren't involved in war, were they!!
Yes - they were.
Apparently - you do not understand what a war is then
Linda Lee
> On 1/24/2010 9:07 AM, Ike E 1/24/2010 wrote:
>
> > "Pastor Dave"<newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:nk7ml5ptm0fmajvpp...@4ax.com...
> >> spake thusly:
>
> >>> Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>
> >> Yes and the national part that was to be saved,
> >> was "the remnant" spoken of in ch 11.
>
> > Which will be OF both "national Israel" (as it "was") and spiritual Israel
> > (as it "is") to form A NEW THING ALTOGETHER IN THE END OF AGE.
>
> > Idiot: You know no more about God's plan than the people you accuse.
>
> Actually - that one is true
>
> NOBODY actually knows anything about a god- it is ALL belief
I see you have no problem with poor little Ike calling every believer,
except himself (so he claims), an idiot and moron. No wonder, since
the demon-seed's supporters are only atheists like yourself
ThomM
First - My father and I are both Huxley Agnostics - not athiests - and
YOU have already been told that one before as well. SO - your
statement does not apply to him.
Second - MY father did not say anything about what IKE calls others -
it is NOT in his post. That YOU suggest it - is a reflection on
YOURSELF - not him.
All my father said was that nobody actually know anything about a god
- it is ALL belief.
And that happens to be the truth - there is nothing about supernatural
gods that can be proven to be true - since supernatural gods
themselves cannot be proven to exist.
And that ALSO means that NO one knows anything about the "plan' of a
god. .
Ike has his own religion - and YOU have yours. You both have decided
what YOU want to believe - and what you do not want to believe -
personally. THat your beliefs and his beliefs are different is NO
surprise at all - especially here on line - where theists argue over
the meaning of the simplest phrases of their so called "scripture".
Since NONE of you can PROVE your statements are true - and the others
are false - they are also beliefs. ANd that also proves that they are
human created - since they are your choice. No god has come forward to
say that LINDA is correct or IKE is Correct.
Thommadura
YOu obviously must have problems with reading comprehension then - since
I never said any such thing in MY post - nor does any such thing appear
in any part of the post I replied to.
Based on that - the description is something YOU posted - not me OR ike.
ANd those are YOUR choice of words to describe yourself- YOU should
consider your own words more carefully if they bother you. In this
particular thread - Pastor dave - the one who complains about people
judging him - calls IKE an idiot. Since he appears to have personal
experience in the subject - I find no reason to disagree.
No wonder, since
> the demon-seed's supporters are only atheists like yourself
I am still a Huxley Agnostic - not an atheist - and your statement
therefore does not apply - to me. And the word demon - as YOU use it --
has no provable meaning in reality either. WE agnostics accept what is
PROVEN true to all about supernatural gods - and therefore we will
ALWAYS be in the side of truth - something YOU cannot claim.
ALL I said was something that is TRUE
Nobody actually knows anything about supernatural gods - it is ALL
Belief. That would also mean that nobody has any knowledge of what "gods
plan' is either - since nobody can prove that they have any way of
knowing that.
And - that makes the statement above "You know no more about God's plan
than the people you accuse" - correct.
Nobody can prove they know anything about a plan - since they cannot
prove a god exists - and has the capability to have one.
WHile the you and others argue over religion - and claim to know the
"truth" = the fact remains you do not KNOW anything - you believe things
based on what YOU want to believe -not based on any proven facts.
That Ike has a religious belief - and YOU have a different one - is
obvious. THat yours is not more provable than his is - also should be
obvious. And until a god appears to confirm what you say - no matter how
bad this makes YOU feel - Ike's belief is JUST as valid as anyone elses
- including all the ones YOU dismiss as well.
Linda Lee
> On Jan 27, 9:23 am,LindaLee<lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 10:54 am, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/24/2010 9:07 AM, Ike E 1/24/2010 wrote:
>
> > > > "Pastor Dave"<newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:nk7ml5ptm0fmajvpp...@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:56:36 -0800 (PST), r m<roym...@gmail.com>
> > > >> spake thusly:
>
> > > >>> Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>
> > > >> Yes and the national part that was to be saved,
> > > >> was "the remnant" spoken of in ch 11.
>
> > > > Which will be OF both "national Israel" (as it "was") and spiritual Israel
> > > > (as it "is") to form A NEW THING ALTOGETHER IN THE END OF AGE.
>
> > > > Idiot: You know no more about God's plan than the people you accuse.
>
> > > Actually - that one is true
>
> > > NOBODY actually knows anything about a god- it is ALL belief
>
> > I see you have no problem with poor little Ike calling every believer,
> > except himself (so he claims), an idiot and moron. No wonder, since
> > the demon-seed's supporters are only atheists like yourself
I was actually commenting on your judgment in which you ignore Ike's
habitual abominable behavior:
"And Linda Lee - has decided that SHE alone has the right to JUDGE Ike
- even when her own religion tells her NOT TO.
Why bother believe in religion when those who do OPENLY ignore what it
says."
>
> First - My father and I are both Huxley Agnostics - not athiests - and
> YOU have already been told that one before as well. SO - your
> statement does not apply to him.
>
> Second - MY father did not say anything about what IKE calls others -
> it is NOT in his post. That YOU suggest it - is a reflection on
> YOURSELF - not him.
>
> All my father said was that nobody actually know anything about a god
> - it is ALL belief.
>
> And that happens to be the truth - there is nothing about supernatural
> gods that can be proven to be true - since supernatural gods
> themselves cannot be proven to exist.
> And that ALSO means that NO one knows anything about the "plan' of a
> god. .
>
> Ike has his own religion - and YOU have yours. You both have decided
> what YOU want to believe - and what you do not want to believe -
> personally. THat your beliefs and his beliefs are different is NO
> surprise at all - especially here on line - where theists argue over
> the meaning of the simplest phrases of their so called "scripture".
>
> Since NONE of you can PROVE your statements are true - and the others
> are false - they are also beliefs. ANd that also proves that they are
> human created - since they are your choice. No god has come forward to
> say thatLINDAis correct or IKE is Correct.
Thommadura
And WHAT give YOU the right to judge then - -the only thing that would
= against IKE - would be proven truth - which NEITHER Of you have.
So =- the correct answer would be he has his belief and you have yours.
Your TITLE - "But Ike knows better than Isaiah or the Apostle Paul,
too" - is an example of what you are saying. Paul was NOT one of the
original apostles in the MYTH - and he admits to not having seen the
christ in life.
So IKE is JUST as knowledgeable as PAUL would be.
Isaiah's messiah never came - the jewish prophecies of the messiah were
never fulfilled by the christ. He never united the world under a single
leader (which was supposed to be him) - and he never brought all of the
worlds jews back to Jerusalem (Even Israel of today has NOT done that) -
and he never established a single JEWISH religion that all agreed was
the ONLY true religion. Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ - since the
jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god - their commandment
made it clear they had only one - not triune - god.
Linda Lee
> On 1/28/2010 9:03 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 12:54 pm, ThomM<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Jan 27, 9:23 am,LindaLee<lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 24, 10:54 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1/24/2010 9:07 AM, Ike E 1/24/2010 wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Pastor Dave"<newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:nk7ml5ptm0fmajvpp...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:56:36 -0800 (PST), r m<roym...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> spake thusly:
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Dave. Rom 11 should be read in light of Rom 9.
>
> >>>>>> Yes and the national part that was to be saved,
> >>>>>> was "the remnant" spoken of in ch 11.
>
> >>>>> Which will be OF both "national Israel" (as it "was") and spiritual Israel
> >>>>> (as it "is") to form A NEW THING ALTOGETHER IN THE END OF AGE.
>
> >>>>> Idiot: You know no more about God's plan than the people you accuse.
>
> >>>> Actually - that one is true
>
> >>>> NOBODY actually knows anything about a god- it is ALL belief
>
> >>> I see you have no problem with poor little Ike calling every believer,
> >>> except himself (so he claims), an idiot and moron. No wonder, since
> >>> the demon-seed's supporters are only atheists like yourself
>
> > I was actually commenting on your judgment in which you ignore Ike's
> > habitual abominable behavior:
>
> > - even when her own religion tells her NOT TO.
>
> > Why bother believe in religion when those who do OPENLY ignore what it
> > says."
>
> And WHAT give YOU the right to judge then - -the only thing that would
> = against IKE - would be proven truth - which NEITHER Of you have.
You're wrong. What I have against Ike is that he's an ignorant
blowhard rageaholic, a name-calling male chauvinist pig who calls all
believers morons and idiot, and has been calling me Jezebel, she-
beast, and other names, many of them filthy, for four years.
>
> So =- the correct answer would be he has his belief and you have yours.
>
> Your TITLE - "But Ike knows better than Isaiah or the Apostle Paul,
> too" - is an example of what you are saying.
NOT MY title. You are confused. That's Vera's title who began her post
with "You always claim to know better than Paul, too... " - see
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/25726758ce09ddce
> Paul was NOT one of the
> original apostles in the MYTH -
I reject Paul as a violent and evil false apostle; Ike idolizes him.
> and he admits to not having seen the
> christ in life.
And according to the Messiah's teachings, he would not have seen him
after the crucifixion and resurrection either as Christ said he'd
manifest himself to those who loved him, and Paul hated him and his
disciples when he makes up his story about Christ appearing to him and
appointing him as an apostle. He just infiltrated from within the
church (because they were multiplying too fast for him to continue
killing all of them).
> So IKE is JUST as knowledgeable as PAUL would be.
Ain't that the truth. Neither of them preach the gospel of the Messiah
or understand it.
>
> Isaiah's messiah never came - the jewish prophecies of the messiah were
> never fulfilled by the christ. He never united the world under a single
> leader (which was supposed to be him) - and he never brought all of the
> worlds jews back to Jerusalem (Even Israel of today has NOT done that) -
> and he never established a single JEWISH religion that all agreed was
> the ONLY true religion.
If you knew the New Testament, you'd know Christ said that was to
happen when he returned 'in the glory of the Father' - as God the Holy
Spirit. Apparently, you don't have any proven truth either.
> Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ -
> since the
> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour. In the days of the Messiah,
these would become his multitudes of disciples, and many would be
killed; first by the disbelieving Israelites/Jews (including Saul/
Paul), and then by the Romans.
Psa. 47:5 says, “God is gone up with a shout, the LORD [YHWH] with the
sound of a trumpet”. Psa. 47:5 is referring to God, the LORD; however,
this is a prophesy of God as the Messiah and his ascension into Heaven
as 'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible' says of Psa. 47:5,
“THIS TEXT IS APPLIED TO THE MESSIAH BY THE ANCIENT JEWISH WRITERS”
Some further evidence concerning the Israelites expectation that they
believed God Himself would come as their Messiah and King is in Psa.
110:1.
The following on Adonai from The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Adon" (as
well as Adonai) is also “a divine name” and the word 'Adon' is
translated “Lord” in Ps. 110:1 in reference to David's Lord.
Psa. 110:1 says, “<A Psalm of David.> The LORD [YHVH] said unto my
Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool”.
The prophets were cognizant of the fact that YHVH/LORD is speaking to
David's Lord in Psa. 110:1, and that both Lords are ONE and the same,
as both YHVH/"LORD" and Adon/"Lord" are divine names, and there is
only One God (“The LORD our God is one LORD” - Deut. 6:4).
Since David was prophesying and David's Lord was the expected Messiah,
that means the prophets were prophesying a divine Messiah; in other
words, the prophets were prophesying God would incarnate as the King
Messiah.
“Adonai ...occurs as a name of God apart from its use by the Masorites
as a substituted reading for Yhwh. It was, probably, at first Adoni
(“my Lord”) or Adonai (“my Lord,” plural of majesty), and later
assumed this form, as a proper name, to distinguish it from other uses
of the same word. The simple form ADON, with and without the article,
also occurs as a DIVINE NAME.” - see 'Names of God' - 'Adonai and
Baal' – 'The Jewish Encyclopedia'.
The Hebrew Scriptures countless times say that God is the King of
Israel For example, in Isa. 43:15 God says HE is KING OF ISRAEL, “I am
the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, YOUR KING”. Isa. 33:22
says God is Israel's King, Judge, and Saviour, “For the LORD is our
judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is OUR KING; HE WILL SAVE
US”. In Isa. 44:6, Psa. 89:18, and Zep. 3:15, God is also called the
King of Israel.
And the Messiah was hailed as the blessed King of Israel:
John 12:12-15 says, “On the next day much people that were come to the
feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, Took
branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried,
Hosanna: Blessed is the KING OF ISRAEL that cometh in the name of the
Lord. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is
written, Fear not, daughter of Sion [Zion/Jerusalem]: behold, THY KING
COMETH, sitting on an ass's colt”.
That the multitude “Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to
meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that
cometh in the name of the Lord” to hail him as King is significant.
By spreading the branches of palm trees, paving the way before the
King Messiah, the “very great multitude” was indicating they
recognized that the Messiah was God who was tabernacling (dwelling)
with them (and had brought salvation).
'Geneva Bible Translation Notes':
“Mat 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed,
cried, saying, (e) Hosanna to the Son of David: (f) Blessed [is] he
that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
(e) This was an ancient kind of cry, which they voiced in the feast of
Tabernacles, when they carried boughs according as God commanded;
(Lev_23:40 [“branches of palm trees”]). And the word is corruptly made
of two, for we should say, "Hoshiang-na", which is as much as to say,
“Save I pray thee”.”
Linda Lee
You are correct to call yourself agnostic (without knowledge)
pertaining to God.
Thommadura
How non judgemental of you - NOT
>
>>
>> So =- the correct answer would be he has his belief and you have yours.
>>
>
>> Your TITLE - "But Ike knows better than Isaiah or the Apostle Paul,
>> too" - is an example of what you are saying.
>
> NOT MY title. You are confused. That's Vera's title who began her post
> with "You always claim to know better than Paul, too... " - see
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/25726758ce09ddce
>
>> Paul was NOT one of the
>> original apostles in the MYTH -
>
> I reject Paul as a violent and evil false apostle; Ike idolizes him.
That is part of his belief and NOT yours - you both are heretics to the
most common christian sects.
>
>> and he admits to not having seen the
>> christ in life.
>
> And according to the Messiah's teachings, he would not have seen him
> after the crucifixion and resurrection either as Christ said he'd
> manifest himself to those who loved him, and Paul hated him and his
> disciples when he makes up his story about Christ appearing to him and
> appointing him as an apostle. He just infiltrated from within the
> church (because they were multiplying too fast for him to continue
> killing all of them).
Since it is a MYTH - who cares
>
>
>> So IKE is JUST as knowledgeable as PAUL would be.
>
> Ain't that the truth. Neither of them preach the gospel of the Messiah
> or understand it.
Neither can you PROVE you do
>
>>
>> Isaiah's messiah never came - the jewish prophecies of the messiah were
>> never fulfilled by the christ. He never united the world under a single
>> leader (which was supposed to be him) - and he never brought all of the
>> worlds jews back to Jerusalem (Even Israel of today has NOT done that) -
>> and he never established a single JEWISH religion that all agreed was
>> the ONLY true religion.
>
> If you knew the New Testament, you'd know Christ said that was to
> happen when he returned 'in the glory of the Father' - as God the Holy
> Spirit. Apparently, you don't have any proven truth either.
Actually - I memorized the bible - and the christ has NOT fulfilled the
prophecies of the messiah - without question (Of course - myths do not
do anything real either)
Among the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during
his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:
* Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple,
in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)
* Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them
home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)
* Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be
ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and
serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and
Zephaniah 3:9)
* Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9
and Michah 4:3-4).
There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also
achieve (there is no mention of any �second coming� in the Tanach or the
New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as
Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the
Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
"If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the
Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King
David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails
upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its
direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the
Messiah.
If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the
Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond
doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is
killed, he is not the Messiah."
That the christ failed to perform the ABOVE is clear - so he was NOT the
messiah
>
>
>> Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ -
>
>
>> since the
>> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
>
>
> That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
> come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour.
That is False
IT is clear by the prophecies that their god would SEND a savior.
SInce they do not recognize additional gods like the christians do -
sending a savior means sending another - who therefore could not be
their god
Thommadura
It is YOUR religion - I do not follow nonsense like that - apparently
YOU do not either
>
> You're wrong. What I have against Ike is that he's an ignorant
> blowhard rageaholic, a name-calling male chauvinist pig who calls all
> believers morons and idiot, and has been calling me Jezebel, she-
> beast, and other names, many of them filthy, for four years.
And proof that you are being judgemental - and therefore a reason for me
to say that YOU openly ignore your religion
>
>>
>> So =- the correct answer would be he has his belief and you have yours.
>>
>
>> Your TITLE - "But Ike knows better than Isaiah or the Apostle Paul,
>> too" - is an example of what you are saying.
>
> NOT MY title. You are confused. That's Vera's title who began her post
> with "You always claim to know better than Paul, too... " - see
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/25726758ce09ddce
>
>> Paul was NOT one of the
>> original apostles in the MYTH -
>
> I reject Paul as a violent and evil false apostle; Ike idolizes him.
Since BOTH ideas are heretical to mainstream christian belief - which
one of you can provide actual proof of their statements (Noting the
bible is a book of faith - not truth)
>
>> and he admits to not having seen the
>> christ in life.
>
> And according to the Messiah's teachings, he would not have seen him
> after the crucifixion and resurrection either as Christ said he'd
> manifest himself to those who loved him, and Paul hated him and his
> disciples when he makes up his story about Christ appearing to him and
> appointing him as an apostle. He just infiltrated from within the
> church (because they were multiplying too fast for him to continue
> killing all of them).
THere was NO messiah - as I noted - the christ did not fulfill the
requirements
>
>
>> So IKE is JUST as knowledgeable as PAUL would be.
>
> Ain't that the truth. Neither of them preach the gospel of the Messiah
> or understand it.
Neither can YOU - Linda - since yOU have no knowledge of anything as well
>
>>
>> Isaiah's messiah never came - the jewish prophecies of the messiah were
>> never fulfilled by the christ. He never united the world under a single
>> leader (which was supposed to be him) - and he never brought all of the
>> worlds jews back to Jerusalem (Even Israel of today has NOT done that) -
>> and he never established a single JEWISH religion that all agreed was
>> the ONLY true religion.
>
> If you knew the New Testament, you'd know Christ said that was to
> happen when he returned 'in the glory of the Father' - as God the Holy
> Spirit. Apparently, you don't have any proven truth either.
Actually - I can quote the bible quite well - having memorized it as a
youth. It is clear that the christ myth did not fulfill the requirements
for the messiah
>
>
>> Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ -
>
>
>> since the
>> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
>
>
> That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
> come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour. In the days of the Messiah,
> these would become his multitudes of disciples, and many would be
> killed; first by the disbelieving Israelites/Jews (including Saul/
> Paul), and then by the Romans.
That is FALSE
ANd your quotes do not support your statement - so I snipped them
THe mainstream jew did not accept the christ as a god - and would not -
since THEY only have one single god - and the christ could only be a
prophet to them (First commandment. In addition - the hierarchy of
Judaism rejected the christ - and still does - rightfully so. He did not
fulfill the stated requirements to be a messiah - much less a god.
CHristians like to rewrite history and interpret what they want - but
must remember that the New Testament is NOT a jewish document - and does
not reflect directly on their beliefs.
It is clear that the Jews expected their god to SEND a savior. Since
they only believe in one god - not three(not matter how you explain it -
the trinity is nonsense) - he was not coming himself.
Linda Lee
> On 1/29/2010 12:51 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> >
> Since it is a MYTH - who cares
Then why don't you drop the subject and leave?
>
> Actually - I memorized the bible
Not believable.
>
> >> Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ -
>
> >> since the
> >> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
>
> > That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
> > come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour.
>
> That is False
LOL! So then why did you delete the evidence refuting you? Here it is
again:
That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
Linda Lee
>
<snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
"agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
Thommadura
Like a said - A typical Judgmental theist - who preaches one thing- but
does another.
If YOU are so distressed with what IKE says - it could only be because
you see some truth in it
>
>>
>> So =- the correct answer would be he has his belief and you have yours.
>>
>
>> Your TITLE - "But Ike knows better than Isaiah or the Apostle Paul,
>> too" - is an example of what you are saying.
>
> NOT MY title. You are confused. That's Vera's title who began her post
> with "You always claim to know better than Paul, too... " - see
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/25726758ce09ddce
>
>> Paul was NOT one of the
>> original apostles in the MYTH -
>
> I reject Paul as a violent and evil false apostle; Ike idolizes him.
Since both of you are heretics to mainstream christianity - what is the
difference -
>
>> and he admits to not having seen the
>> christ in life.
>
> And according to the Messiah's teachings, he would not have seen him
> after the crucifixion and resurrection either as Christ said he'd
> manifest himself to those who loved him,
That is part of the MYTH - of course -=
I will only show myself to those who believe - and not to those I should
be PROVING myself to
A bunch of nonsense
and Paul hated him and his
> disciples when he makes up his story about Christ appearing to him and
> appointing him as an apostle. He just infiltrated from within the
> church (because they were multiplying too fast for him to continue
> killing all of them).
>
>
>> So IKE is JUST as knowledgeable as PAUL would be.
>
> Ain't that the truth. Neither of them preach the gospel of the Messiah
> or understand it.
Since there has been no messiah - and there is NO gospel of the messiah
(none are attributed as written by the christ)- no one preaches the
gospel of the messiah
>
>>
>> Isaiah's messiah never came - the jewish prophecies of the messiah were
>> never fulfilled by the christ. He never united the world under a single
>> leader (which was supposed to be him) - and he never brought all of the
>> worlds jews back to Jerusalem (Even Israel of today has NOT done that) -
>> and he never established a single JEWISH religion that all agreed was
>> the ONLY true religion.
>
> If you knew the New Testament, you'd know Christ said that was to
> happen when he returned 'in the glory of the Father' - as God the Holy
> Spirit. Apparently, you don't have any proven truth either.
>
Actually - I can quote the bible quite well - having memorized it as a
Since history clearly shows that these things did not happen - the
christ is not the messiah
>
>> Nor did Isaiah ever know the christ -
>
>
>> since the
>> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
>
>
> That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
> come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour.
Sorry - but YOUR statement - as it pertains to mainstream judaism is
complete nonsense - and I snipped your proof - since it did not support
your statement in actuality. YOU must remember that the NT is not a
jewish document - and reflects the myth as presented by christians -
not the reality of Judaism.
AS I noted above - the christ myth did not fulfill the requirements to
be the messiah - and that is why mainstream jews rejected the story -
and that is why - to this day - the jews are still looking for their
real messiah.
THe fact is - the Jews expect their god to "SEND" a savior. Since they
have only ONE(see the First commandment) god (Not the three of
christianity - the trinity is nonsense) - he was clearly to send
another to be the savior.
Thommadura
Since NO one has any knowledge they can prove about a god - at least I
admit the truth - and you will argue the point - but still provide
nothing about a god that you can prove it true
Nevertheless - a Huxley agnostic accept what is PROVEN to be true - and
is NOT without knowledge - there is NONE to be had.
Thommadura
And since YOU have added none - you admit you have none as well that is
proven
Thommadura
WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
either
And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
Linda Lee
> On 1/29/2010 12:51 AM,LindaLeewrote:
> does another.
>
> If YOU are so distressed with what IKE says - it could only be because
> you see some truth in it
There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you. Then
you might 'get the picture', and perhaps other ignorant people would
just think it must be true or else you wouldn't mind it one bit.
LOL! Let me know if you'd like to try the experiment.
Linda Lee
> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof" you are
dishonest as well? You're being hypocritical.
The following is from your post at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.theology/msg/f2abf484fee704ef
where you snipped my "quotes" claiming they did not support my
statement, when they did support it, so I've restored some of what you
snipped at the bottom of this post.
You:
> >> since the
> >> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
>
Me:
> > That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
> > come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour. In the days of the Messiah,
> > these would become his multitudes of disciples, and many would be
> > killed; first by the disbelieving Israelites/Jews (including Saul/
> > Paul), and then by the Romans.
>
You:
> That is FALSE
>
> ANd your quotes do not support your statement - so I snipped them
You lie. (Or perhaps you're just too "without knowledge" of the
Scriptures to understand; I suppose that's a possibility. And you
sound more like a hostile ignorant atheist than an agnostic (one
"without knowledge"), by the way, as an agnostic believes only there's
no way of knowing if there is a God, but you repeatedly claim the
Scriptures are a myth as if you know that for sure. So please be
honest and quit claiming you're an agnostic.)
"Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour. In the days of the Messiah,
these would become his multitudes of disciples, and many would be
killed; first by the disbelieving Israelites/Jews (including Saul/
Paul), and then by the Romans.
Psa. 47:5 says, “God is gone up with a shout, the LORD [YHWH] with the
Thommadura
THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
supernatural gods - along with the proof
ANd to date -they have posted not a single thing they can PROVE is true
about what they say
SO - you are just as ignorant as I am - you just claim otherwise
Thommadura
> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>>
>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
>> either
>>
>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>
>
>
> Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
you are
> dishonest as well? You're being hypocritical.
Since all you quoted was sources of religious belief - and provided NO
proof that THEY have any validity - I was just being logical to ignore them
The bible and the other things you posted are religious beliefs - not
proven truth
If you insist on using them to support your claim - that means I can use
them and those of all other religions to deny your claims.
Scripture clearly says that the christ was NOT a god - was not the son
of a god - and did not die on a cross - and it also cleary states that
the bible has been compromised and is no longer accurate.
Prove that to be wrong
duke
>> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
>> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
>> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
>> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
>> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
>THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
>I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
>they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
>supernatural gods - along with the proof
I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
deliver, I'll deliver.
Thommadura
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:29:15 -0500, Thommadura<tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
>>> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
>>> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
>>> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
>>> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
>
>> THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
>
>> I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
>> they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
>> supernatural gods - along with the proof
>
> I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
> deliver, I'll deliver.
>
You already replied - that YOU have nothing you can prove - you said
you have evidence - which is NOT PROOF.
And we already know that NO ONE has any proof - that is testable and
verifiable by all - or there would be ONE christian religion - not over
39,000 different ones and counting
I need not go over that one time and again - your gods are belief - not
proven truth
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 11:48 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
> >>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>
> >> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
> >> either
>
> >> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>
> > Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
>
> Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
YOU claimed the bible quotes didn't show the Jews expected their
Messiah to be God; I showed you otherwise.
And you quote as "proof" the Mishnah Torah, as if it proves anything
more than the Scriptures (actually it proves less). Sheesh. You are
dumb.
You wrote:
<begin quote>
"In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as
Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the
Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
"If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the
Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King
David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails
upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its
direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is
the
Messiah.
If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the
Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is
beyond
doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is
killed, he is not the Messiah." "
<end quote>
>
> you are
>
> > dishonest as well? You're being hypocritical.
>
> Since all you quoted was sources of religious belief - and provided NO
> proof that THEY have any validity - I was just being logical to ignore them
But you don't ignore the Mishnah and rely on it for proof! LOL!
Linda Lee
He's already shown in a very brief time, he's almost wholly ignorant
on the subject. All he's got are beliefs; the belief that God doesn't
exist.
Thommadura
> On Jan 30, 12:32 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2010 11:48 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
>>>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>>
>>>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
>>>> either
>>
>>>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>>
>>> Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
>>
>> Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
>
> YOU claimed the bible quotes didn't show the Jews expected their
> Messiah to be God; I showed you otherwise.
No = YOU showed the BIBLE story - which is NOT proof about the jews
>
> And you quote as "proof" the Mishnah Torah, as if it proves anything
> more than the Scriptures (actually it proves less). Sheesh. You are
> dumb.
THe word "scripture" means "religious writings" and the Torah IS a
scripture - call yourself dumb on that one
> You wrote:
> <begin quote>
> "In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as
> Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the
> Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
> "If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the
> Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King
> David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails
> upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its
> direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is
> the
> Messiah.
>
> If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the
> Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is
> beyond
> doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is
> killed, he is not the Messiah." "
> <end quote>
>
>>
>> you are
>>
>>> dishonest as well? You're being hypocritical.
>>
>> Since all you quoted was sources of religious belief - and provided NO
>> proof that THEY have any validity - I was just being logical to ignore them
>
> But you don't ignore the Mishnah and rely on it for proof! LOL!
No - I simply said that your statement is contradicted by scripture as well.
ANd so far - there is NO proof of any of it - that YOU have presented or
anyone else
Thommadura
I am sorry - but YOU are wrong
I said that NO gods are proven to exist - that is NOT a belief - it is
a TRUTH
ANd you certainly have not posted anything to prove otherwise either.
ThomM
My father has been here for years -
And I note that while you claim he BELIEVES gods do not exist - which
is NOT his position - (he said as I do that no gods are proven to
exist) - YOU have not provided a single PROVEN thing about your gods
as well.
And THat means you are just as ignorant - but you are the one making
claims
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 7:11 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 12:32 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2010 11:48 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
> >>>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>
> >>>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
> >>>> either
>
> >>>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>
> >>> Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
>
> >> Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
>
> > YOU claimed the bible quotes didn't show the Jews expected their
> > Messiah to be God; I showed you otherwise.
>
> No = YOU showed the BIBLE story - which is NOT proof about the jews
>
Wrong.
Notice what is being said in the following verse:
Psa. 110:1 says, “<A Psalm of David.> The LORD [YHVH] said unto my
Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool”.
The prophets were cognizant of the fact that YHVH/LORD is speaking to
David's Lord in Psa. 110:1, and that both Lords are ONE and the same,
as both YHVH/"LORD" and Adon/"Lord" are divine names, and there is
only One God (“The LORD our God is one LORD” - Deut. 6:4).
Since David was prophesying and David's Lord was the expected Messiah,
that means the prophets were prophesying a divine Messiah; in other
words, the prophets were prophesying God would incarnate as the King
Messiah.
“Adonai ...occurs as a name of God apart from its use by the Masorites
as a substituted reading for Yhwh. It was, probably, at first Adoni
(“my Lord”) or Adonai (“my Lord,” plural of majesty), and later
assumed this form, as a proper name, to distinguish it from other uses
of the same word. The simple form ADON, with and without the article,
also occurs as a DIVINE NAME.” - see 'Names of God' - 'Adonai and
Baal' – 'The Jewish Encyclopedia'.
>
>
> > And you quote as "proof" the Mishnah Torah, as if it proves anything
> > more than the Scriptures (actually it proves less). Sheesh. You are
> > dumb.
>
> THe word "scripture" means "religious writings" and the Torah IS a
> scripture - call yourself dumb on that one
The point always goes right over your head, doesn't it? You're arguing
from other religious writings (the Mishnah) to attempt to disprove the
religious writings I am using (the Tanakh and NT).
dolf
sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a
sign-'OTH between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six
days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested,
and was refreshed. 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." [Exodus 31:16-18 (KJV)]
The 'OTH-sign is a unique cosmological event related to the Sabbath as
the seventh day of the week.
The 'OTH cycle is a base 7 chronology associated to the Equinox of 20
March and from there is computed 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days as 6D or 6 x
364 days and this repeats in 294 x 364 days as 6J.
This is the only proof of God which the Bible gives.
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 7:16 PM,LindaLeewrote:
It is only your truth, your subject reality. Just because God has not
"proven" Himself to you means nothing. The Scriptures do not say he
will manifest to those who hate and/or reject him, but will manifest
to those who love him. That leaves you out apparently.
>
> ANd you certainly have not posted anything to prove otherwise either.
And I have no interest in listening to your 'broken record' repeats
about your ignorant unbeliefs any longer. You've said it; you live
it. It certainly doesn't change what I know to be true or cause me
any doubts.
Look! They wrote about you!
Psa. 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 7:16 PM,LindaLeewrote:
It is only your truth, your subjective reality. Just because God has
not
"proven" Himself to you means nothing. The Scriptures do not say he
will manifest to those who hate and/or reject him, but will manifest
to those who love him. That leaves you out apparently.
> ANd you certainly have not posted anything to prove otherwise either.
And I have no interest in listening to your 'broken record' repeats
Linda Lee
> On Jan 30, 7:16 pm,LindaLee<lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 1:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:29:15 -0500, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > >> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
> > > >> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
> > > >> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
> > > >> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
> > > >> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
> > > >THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
> > > >I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
> > > >they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
> > > >supernatural gods - along with the proof
>
> > > I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
> > > deliver, I'll deliver.
>
> > > The Dukester, American-American
> > > *****
> > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> > > Pope Paul VI
> > > *****
>
> > He's already shown in a very brief time, he's almost wholly ignorant
> > on the subject. All he's got are beliefs; the belief that God doesn't
> > exist.
>
> My father has been here for years -
Well, I don't know what that has to do with my statement, unless your
point is that atheism is a family tradition with you. Are you ashamed
to say which ignorant atheist he is?
Thommadura
> On Jan 30, 7:29 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2010 7:11 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 12:32 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2010 11:48 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
>>>>>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>>
>>>>>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
>>>>>> either
>>
>>>>>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>>
>>>>> Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
>>
>>>> Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
>>
>>> YOU claimed the bible quotes didn't show the Jews expected their
>>> Messiah to be God; I showed you otherwise.
>>
>> No = YOU showed the BIBLE story - which is NOT proof about the jews
>>
>
> Wrong.
Sorry Linda - But I do not accept the bible as anything but "belief" =
because that is ALL it is. -
So YOU provided NO proof at all
>>
>>
>>> And you quote as "proof" the Mishnah Torah, as if it proves anything
>>> more than the Scriptures (actually it proves less).
Actually - neither PROVE anything - they are beliefs - as I noted.
>>
>> THe word "scripture" means "religious writings" and the Torah IS a
>> scripture - call yourself dumb on that one
>
> The point always goes right over your head, doesn't it?You're arguing
> from other religious writings (the Mishnah) to attempt to disprove the
> religious writings I am using (the Tanakh and NT).
No - the point has not gone over anyone's head - you are quoting
christian religious beliefs - not truth. And I quoted jewish religious
beliefs - which are also not truth - but contradict your statement.
THE FACT IS - the jewish hierarchy NEVER accepted the christ as the
messiah - and they do not to this day. They did not -= because he did
not fulfill the requirements of the prophecies of the messiah. NOTHING
you can quote changes that TRUTH.
And I note - what I said was that to date - we BOTH have the same proven
knowledge about supernatural gods - NONE - and nothing YOU have posted
changes that one.
S0 - dear linda - go ahead and post all the things you can PROVE (Not
bible nonsense) are true in a testable and verifiable way (That all
muslims and hindus would have to accept as true) about your supernatural
god. To date - there is still nothing on the list. Same with the Hindus,
the Muslims, and those of all other religions and their supernatural gods.
YOU and Michael are good at changing the subject - but you never post
anything to the list - because YOU obviously have nothing you can prove.
dolf
you may not realise that the posters ThomM and Thommadura are separate
people but biologically related.
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 7:48 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:29 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2010 7:11 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 30, 12:32 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/30/2010 11:48 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
> >>>>>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>
> >>>>>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
> >>>>>> either
>
> >>>>>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>
> >>>>> Oh, was your snipping of my argument in the following "proof"
>
> >>>> Sorry - YOU posted bible quotes - not proof
>
> >>> YOU claimed the bible quotes didn't show the Jews expected their
> >>> Messiah to be God; I showed you otherwise.
>
> >> No = YOU showed the BIBLE story - which is NOT proof about the jews
>
> > Wrong.
>
> because that is ALL it is. -
> So YOU provided NO proof at all
>
>
>
> >>> And you quote as "proof" the Mishnah Torah, as if it proves anything
> >>> more than the Scriptures (actually it proves less).
>
> Actually - neither PROVE anything - they are beliefs - as I noted.
>
>
>
> >> THe word "scripture" means "religious writings" and the Torah IS a
> >> scripture - call yourself dumb on that one
>
> > The point always goes right over your head, doesn't it?You're arguing
> > from other religious writings (the Mishnah) to attempt to disprove the
> > religious writings I am using (the Tanakh and NT).
>
> No - the point has not gone over anyone's head - you are quoting
> christian religious beliefs - not truth. And I quoted jewish religious
> beliefs - which are also not truth - but contradict your statement.
>
> THE FACT IS - the jewish hierarchy NEVER accepted the christ as the
> messiah -
LOL! That was not the subject; the subject was whether or not they
expected the Messiah to be divine.
> and they do not to this day. They did not -= because he did
> not fulfill the requirements of the prophecies of the messiah. NOTHING
> you can quote changes that TRUTH.
Because they deny the truth, and you are ignorant of the truth does
not change what is true.
> YOU and Michael are good at changing the subject
Michael who? How did that come up? There's no Michael posting in this
entire thread. You seem to be going in all directions at once;
apparently you've been having a discussion with Michael at some time
somewhere? Or is this an imaginary Michael? Hey! Maybe it's the
archangel Michael talking to you! There's some proof for you!
So I guess you are ashamed to say who your Dad, the poster of many
years, is, huh?
Linda Lee
> On 31/01/10 12:05 PM,LindaLeewrote:> On Jan 30, 7:38 pm, ThomM<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
Thanks. Looks like ThomM is a chip off the old blockhead Thommadura;
they sound just alike.
Thommadura
Either a god is proven or it isn't - and in this case - it isn't - just
ask any Hiindu - or Muslim. IF a god was PROVEN - they would accept
yours - and they DON"T.
Has nothing to do with ME - the majority of the people in the world do
not believe in your gods either.
The Scriptures
Are worthless - since the word still refers to the religous writings of
ALL religions - and the majority of scriptures deny your gods as well.
do not say he
> will manifest to those who hate and/or reject him, but will manifest
> to those who love him. That leaves you out apparently.
Sorry - but it is still TRUTH - and truth for all
NO god has been PROVEN absolutely to exist - THat is a FACT - regardless of
WHat YOU believe does not change that fact - and what scriptures say is
that Brahma Created the world for Vishnu - which leaves the christ out
of the equation.
>
>>
>> ANd you certainly have not posted anything to prove otherwise either.
>
> And I have no interest in listening to your 'broken record' repeats
> about your ignorant unbeliefs any longer. You've said it; you live
> it. It certainly doesn't change what I know to be true or cause me
> any doubts.
Ah - the broken record of a theist - truth is what I believe -PROVE IT.
I accept everything that is PROVEN to be about supernatural gods
AND what you BELIEVE to be true - and what Osama Bin Laden believes to
be true - and what the Ghandi's believed to be true - does not create
any doubts - that NO GODS are proven to be true.
And I note you still have not added a single thing to the list of things
you can absolutely PROVE to be true - which is simply your admission
that you have NONE -= just like Michael and all the others who have
failed to add anything to the list
Thommadura
HE would have to prove himself to EVERYONE - and the majority of the
people on earth do not believe in yours - so obviously he is NOT proven
to be true
The Scriptures
Sorry - but since the word scripture STILL means the religious writing
of ALL religions - the majority of scripture does not support your
position either
do not say he
> will manifest to those who hate and/or reject him, but will manifest
> to those who love him. That leaves you out apparently.
YOur delusion aside - things are not true just Because YOU say they are
If there was actual proof of your god - then I would have to believe -
and I note YOU still have sidestepped the issue
So - where is ALL that PROOF you say you have - ?
I can assume that was a LIE- like all the other theists who never post
any proof of their gods as well?
Thommadura
Since we are NOT atheists - your statement again does not apply
And since YOU have failed to supply any proof of your god AGAIN - I will
assume that you have none to offer.
Thommadura
And YOU used a christian belief tome (the NT is christian - not jewish)
- for your statement - which does not PROVE anything. THings written by
christians were to support their faith - not judaism.
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
WHich says
"The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent,
divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from
the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has
no basis in Jewish thought.
The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David
(Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben
David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law,
and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a
charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a
great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a
great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above
all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural
being."
The fact remains - the Jews - then and now - believe that their god will
SEND a messiah - to redeem the people of Israel - and place them at the
lead of all people on earth in peace - and have ALL people accept
Judaism as the one and only true religion.
"The Tanakh gives several specifications as to who the messiah will be.
He will be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5)
(and therefore a HUMAN), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a
righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader.
Jews do not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental
difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Jewish conviction
that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he
could never become a human. Passages viewed by Christians as indicating
a divine messiah (such as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) are viewed
by Jews as speaking of the people of Israel. In general, only the
following passages are accepted as referring to the messiah:
* Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
* Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
* Ezekiel 38:16
* Hosea 3:4-3:5
* Micah 4
* Zephaniah 3:9
* Zechariah 14:9
* Daniel 10:14"
From
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/messiah.htm
See Also
http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/gideonbernstein/
But then - the christ MYTH was not a god
There is NO quote of him where he claims that one at all - he always
leaves that to his father - who HE PRAYS TO. IF he is the same god --
why would he pray to himself - just one of the reasons the trinity is
nonsense. HE also claims to be of different will as well - since he
supposedly says - NOT MY WILL but YOURS be done. Again - if they are the
SAME single god - then they would agree.
The most common passage in the bible that theist MISQUOTE is the "He and
I are one" statement
Being ONE with someone else is a common idiom in many languages -
including greek and latin and hebrew - which implies agreement. YOU can
look that one up on any number of idiom sites on the web.
Thommadura
Actually - my son left religion before I did.
I was raised to be a priest - memorized the bible and studied Latin
(Which - before YOUR time - was the language of the church). Two of my
fathers brothers were monsignors - and my father and another brother
also attended the Seminary - although both became doctors - as I and my
son also did.
I was educated in christian schools through college - so when YOU say I
do not KNOW - I do know what YOU believe probably better than you do. I
was a church organist for 35 years - and it tool a long time for
religion to convince me that is it a LIE. I held out for a long time -
but it finally proved itself to be nonsense of the highest order.
And - calling anyone a blockhead is typical theist nonsense again. You
complain when IKE calls you names - yet you sink to HIS level by doing
the same thing to him and others.
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 8:58 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, dolf<dolfb...@grapple.id.au> wrote:
> >> On 31/01/10 12:05 PM,LindaLeewrote:> On Jan 30, 7:38 pm, ThomM<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 30, 7:16 pm,LindaLee<lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> My father has been here for years -
>
> >>> Well, I don't know what that has to do with my statement, unless your
> >>> point is that atheism is a family tradition with you. Are you ashamed
> >>> to say which ignorant atheist he is?
>
> >> you may not realise that the posters ThomM and Thommadura are separate
> >> people but biologically related.
>
> > Thanks. Looks like ThomM is a chip off the old blockhead Thommadura;
> > they sound just alike.
>
> Actually - my son left religion before I did.
>
> I was raised to be a priest - memorized the bible and studied Latin
> (Which - before YOUR time - was the language of the church). Two of my
> fathers brothers were monsignors - and my father and another brother
> also attended the Seminary - although both became doctors - as I and my
> son also did.
>
> I was educated in christian schools through college - so when YOU say I
> do not KNOW - I do know what YOU believe probably better than you do.
I doubt that.
> I
> was a church organist for 35 years - and it tool a long time for
> religion to convince me that is it a LIE. I held out for a long time -
> but it finally proved itself to be nonsense of the highest order.
So you were raised and schooled in a church setting. That doesn't
really mean much. You say NOTHING WHATSOEVER about EVER having LOVED
God. Did you ever really believe in God and LOVE God, or were you just
going along with the traditions of your family and neighborhood? The
way you describe it sounds like it was the latter. I would find it
hard to believe that anyone who ever loved God would come to the
conclusion He doesn't exist for any reason
The solid foundation is not being raised and educated by a church or
having simply read the Scriptures without enlightenment. The solid
foundation is love of God evidence by prayer and doing good works
towards our fellow man:
Yahashua` the Messiah said:
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded
upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of
it.
Yahashua` the Messiah said:
Mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and
understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away
that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by
the way side.
Mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same
is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while:
for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by
and by he is offended.
Mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that
heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of
riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
Mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that
heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit
What convinced you there is no God? Your son? What convinced him? Was
it that some of those in your church appeared to you to be evil? Was
it that there is suffering and death in this world? What?
You likely believed the lies of Paul at one time; I could see how his
twisted gobbledegook would cause many to reject the Scriptures as a
whole.
I find atheists curious, as they likely find believers. (And if you
maintain for a certainty that the Scriptures are a nonsensical pack of
lies, you are atheist, not agnostic.) Many don't appear to be stupid
people, but the reasons they give for rejecting belief in God are
often stupid, as if they don't even understand the nature of this
temporal world. For instance, if there were a God, there would not be
evil, i.e. suffering and death in this world; my mother wouldn't have
died if there was a God loved me, my child would not have died if
there was a God who loved me; my life wouldn't be so miserable if
there were a God who loved me, I would never have suffered etc., etc.,
when the Bible never promises anything like that for those living in
the flesh. IF there was no death, suffering, etc. in this world, it
would be what is termed Heaven. But everything living in the flesh
must one day die, either by accident, disease, physical defect, the
acts of evil people, or just from a plain wearing out of the physical
body.
>
> And - calling anyone a blockhead is typical theist nonsense again. You
> complain when IKE calls you names - yet you sink to HIS level by doing
> the same thing to him and others.
I guess the term is 'chip off the old block', not 'chip off the old
blockhead', huh? Pardon me; I apologize. I almost said 'chip off the
old apple', combining/confusing 'the apple doesn't fall far from the
tree' with 'chip off the old block'.
Linda Lee
> On 1/30/2010 8:54 PM,LindaLeewrote:
??? What's your point? No one ever said Mashiyach (i.e. Messiah or
Messias in the Greek) means Saviour. Yasha is translated Saviour in
their own versions of the Hebrew Scriptures as it means to save or be
delivered.
> The notion of an innocent,
> divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from
> the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has
> no basis in Jewish thought.
LOL! I guess the author of that article at Judaism 101 has never read
Isaiah Chapter 53, which refers to one person whose death will atone
for the sins of Israel (Israel cannot be sacrificed to atone for their
own sins) or Zec. 12:10. (See comments on Isaiah Chapter 53 and Zec.
12:10 further down in this post.)
I think Kabbalists and Jewish mystics had other ideas, which they
developed from interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures.
The RAMBAM's 13 Articles of Faith, on which Judaism now rests, says
nothing about whether or not the Messiah would be divine, saying only
"The Messiah will come".
>
> The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David
> (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben
> David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law,
> and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a
> charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a
> great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a
> great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above
> all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural
> being."
>
> The fact remains - the Jews - then and now -
So you will believe the descendants of those Jews who rejected the
Messiah. That's rather naive. What you quoted is the Jews' present
belief, which is *designed* to counteract the well known Christian
belief in Yahashua` the Messiah as God incarnate as the Saviour. Want
some indication that my allegation. The author of that article at
Judaism 101 you quoted thinks the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT MESSIAH
IS: "But ABOVE ALL, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or
other supernatural being".
The author also seems ignorant of the fact that God always maintained
he was Israel's real king, and the future Messiah would be the
everlasting King of Israel.
And HOW will their expected Messiah do all the things expected of him
that author listed when, as Dan. 9:26 says, he will be "cut off" i.e.
destroyed? Dan. 9:26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall
Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince
that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
It is their theology that no longer makes any sense, and it has become
that way because they have altered their interpretations of it, so
that they make no sense in any respect, to try to negate Christ.
Their own Scriptures, MANY TIMES, contradict their current belief that
the Saviour would not be divine. I'm not going to waste my time by
going over every one of them with you, but I will give a few examples.
Isaiah Chapter 53 is one example. Now the claim is it (the "servant")
is referring to the nation of Israel when that is nonsensical because
Israel cannot save Israel, and a mere man cannot atone for the sins of
Israel. That was shown with Moses, who offered to be blotted out of
the book of life if God would forgive the sinful Israelites; the offer
was refused.
Exo 32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people
have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
Exo 32:32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot
me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against
me, him will I blot out of my book.
Exo 32:34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I
have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee:
nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon
them.
Some further evidence concerning the Israelites expectation that they
believed God Himself would come as their Messiah and King is in Psa.
110:1. In Psa. 110:1 God is speaking of himself in the third person,
and both words used to describe him, according to 'The Jewish
Encyclopedia', are divine names for God only (YHVH and Adon, a form of
Adonai):
The following on Adonai from The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Adon" (as
well as Adonai) is also “a divine name” and the word 'Adon' is
translated “Lord” in Ps. 110:1 in reference to David's Lord.
“Adonai ...occurs as a name of God apart from its use by the Masorites
as a substituted reading for Yhwh. It was, probably, at first Adoni
(“my Lord”) or Adonai (“my Lord,” plural of majesty), and later
assumed this form, as a proper name, to distinguish it from other uses
of the same word. The simple form ADON, with and without the article,
also occurs as a DIVINE NAME.” - see 'Names of God' - 'Adonai and
Baal' – 'The Jewish Encyclopedia' -
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=Elohim#168
Psa. 110:1 says, “<A Psalm of David.> The LORD [YHVH] said unto my
Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool”.
Here again God is speaking of himself in the third person. God is
speaking and is saying that when He dwells with us, we will know that
God has "sent" Him just as the Messiah refers to having been "sent" by
the Father. (He is not speaking of Zechariah as this is talking about
the endtimes and has nothing to do with whether or not Zechariah would
be received as a true prophet):
Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I
will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
Zec 2:11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day,
and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and
thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
Zec. 12:10, GOD SAID, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and
upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon ***** ME ***** whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness
for his firstborn".
And Psalm 22, a Psalm of David that Christ quoted on the cross, is
another example, as it describes the death/crucifixion and nothing
like this happened to DAVID.
But I don't expect you to be convinced, as you are blind to the truth
because you have no love of God. you likely won't even read what I've
posted because your mind is already closed and you have chosen to be
blind to the truth and reject God.
> believe that their god will
> SEND a messiah - to redeem the people of Israel - and place them at the
> lead of all people on earth in peace - and have ALL people accept
> Judaism as the one and only true religion.
>
> "The Tanakh gives several specifications as to who the messiah will be.
> He will be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Jeremiah 23:5)
> (and therefore a HUMAN), observant of Jewish law (Isaiah 11:2-5), a
> righteous judge (Jeremiah 33:15), and a great military leader.
>
> Jews do not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental
> difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Jewish conviction
> that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he
> could never become a human.
That idea is the epitomy of ignorance. So according to them, their
"conviction" (an apt word) is that God is NOT OMNIPOTENT, as there are
things He simply "COULD NEVER" DO because they think it is too against
his 'nature'. LOL! Puleeese!!! God MADE 'the laws of nature'; I
think He can do anything with them he pleases.
> Passages viewed by Christians as indicating
> a divine messiah (such as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) are viewed
> by Jews as speaking of the people of Israel.
A ridiculous cop-out; see above.
> In general, only the
> following passages are accepted as referring to the messiah:
>
> * Isaiah 2, 11,
So Isaiah 11 is about the Messiah, according to that author. And he
claims the Scriptures do not indicate the Messiah is divine, so he
thinks the Scriptures do not indicate he will be worshipped.
Isa. 11:10 says the Gentiles will "seek" (meaning follow and worship)
the Messiah, so WHO fulfilled the prophesy of the one the Gentiles
would follow and worship, IF NOT Yahashua` the Messiah?
Isa 11:10, "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which
shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles
seek: and his rest shall be glorious".
The word here translated "seek" - Heb. 1875 - "A primitive root;
properly to tread or frequent; usually to follow (for pursuit or
search); by implication to seek or ask; SPECIFICALLY TO WORSHIP".
> 42; 59:20
> * Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
> * Ezekiel 38:16
> * Hosea 3:4-3:5
> * Micah 4
And if that is referring to the Messiah, how will the Messiah "teach
us of his ways" (Mic. 4:2) when Dan. 9:26 says he will be "cut off"
i.e. destroyed after a period of time? Oh, that's right, the author
doesn't believe that Dan. 9:25-26 should be included as references to
the Messiah, EVEN THOUGH it says explicitly "Messiah be cut off" (Dan.
9:26).
> * Zephaniah 3:9
> * Zechariah 14:9
LOL! Does this guy, the author, even read the Scriptures he is
citing? It doesn't get any more ignorant than that!
Zec. 14:9 (which he cites saying it refers to the Messiah (who would
be king), whom he has claimed is not divine) says that He/Messiah IS
DIVINE: Zec. 14:9 "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in
that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one".
You have been misled by listening to other people without checking out
for yourself if what they are saying is true and accurate. Sounds like
you've been doing that your whole life. Quit being so lazy and relying
upon the mistaken ideas and even deliberate lies of others, and do
some study yourself in the actual Scriptures. Not what your teacher
says, not what your priests said, and certainly not what the false
apostle Paul said. Read the word of God in the words of the prophets
and the WORD of God himself, God incarnate as the Messiah, and you
might find you come to love God.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
It's up to you whether you will rely upon others, including the
'honorable' Paul, or whether you will take the Messiah's advice and
search the Hebrew Scriptures and come to him as your only Teacher and
Guide, that you might have eternal life.
Download e-sword at e-sword.com for easy and free access to an off-
line interactive Bible program with many bible versions, lexicons,
bible dictionaries and commentaries, ancient writings of the church
fathers and Josephus the Jewish historian.
> * Daniel 10:14"
> Fromhttp://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/messiah.htm
>
> See Alsohttp://www.angelfire.com/ri2/gideonbernstein/
No thanks. It's only 7:40 a.m., and I've had my fill of crap for the
day.
<snip further errors> Your overwhelming ignorance is tiring. You will
find evidence of all the things you negate in the New Testament if you
will examine it.
>
> But then - the christ MYTH was not a god
> There is NO quote of him where he claims that one at all - he always
> leaves that to his father - who HE PRAYS TO. IF he is the same god --
> why would he pray to himself -
Why would God pray to himself? Probably for the same reason that GOD
SWEARS BY HIMSELF in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Here God swears by himself about coming forth in righteousness (does
that strike a chord in relation to the Messiah whom everyone should
'bow the knee' to?):
Isa 45:23 GOD SAID, "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of
my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every
knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear".
Jer 22:5 "But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself,
saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation".
Gen 22:16 "And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son".
> just one of the reasons the trinity is
> nonsense. HE also claims to be of different will as well - since he
> supposedly says - NOT MY WILL but YOURS be done. Again - if they are the
> SAME single god - then they would agree.
>
> The most common passage in the bible that theist MISQUOTE is the "He and
> I are one" statement
>
> Being ONE with someone else is a common idiom in many languages -
> including greek and latin and hebrew - which implies agreement. YOU can
> look that one up on any number of idiom sites on the web.
It is not unusual that someone who has been around the church all of
his life does not know or understand the Scriptures. You need to start
studying before it is too late for you and your son. If you had any
knowledge, you would have been able to teach him knowledge of God, and
he wouldn't have rejected God, even before you, as you said. Instead,
you were seemingly involved, but ignorant, and he could see that; then
he influenced you. Sad.
Thommadura
Since a god never provably existed - NO ONE HAVE ever actually loved a
god- only their personal delusions - which do not exist.
Did you ever really believe in God and LOVE God, or were you just
> going along with the traditions of your family and neighborhood?
Again - since a god is not proven to exist - you never actually loved a
god - YOU love the human created stories that you claim are true -but
provide NO support for it
The
> way you describe it sounds like it was the latter. I would find it
> hard to believe that anyone who ever loved God would come to the
> conclusion He doesn't exist for any reason
Sorry - but I have all the reasons I need to KNOW that the god of
christianity is a fraud as is christianity itself. Tha YOU cannot fathom
the reasons are hardly a surprise.
>
> The solid foundation is not being raised and educated by a church or
> having simply read the Scriptures without enlightenment.
Again - a statement made without PROOF - and dismissed as UNSUPPORTED BY YOU
The solid
> foundation is love of God evidence by prayer and doing good works
> towards our fellow man:
>
Again - quoting the beliefs of religion proves NOTHING Linda
So _ I snipped them again
The bible is no more proven than any other religious scripture - and YOU
reject most religious scripture as MYTH (Zeus - after all - is the MAIN
god - unless YOU pick Jupiter instead!)
I simply apply the SAME standards of belief to all religious scripture
and use the same requirement of proof that YOU use to deny the scripture
of other religions against the bible and christian scripture.
And as I note again - you still have yet to add a single item to the
list of things you can ABSOLUTLEY prove in a testable and verifiable
manner about your supernatural gods -
>
>>
>> And - calling anyone a blockhead is typical theist nonsense again. You
>> complain when IKE calls you names - yet you sink to HIS level by doing
>> the same thing to him and others.
>
>
> I guess the term is 'chip off the old block', not 'chip off the old
> blockhead', huh? Pardon me; I apologize. I almost said 'chip off the
> old apple', combining/confusing 'the apple doesn't fall far from the
> tree' with 'chip off the old block'.
A bishop told my son that he could not marry his wife - because - EVEN
THOUGH his wife's first husband had attempted to KILL HER - and was
convicted of the crime and was in prison for life (She almost died)- her
marriage to her attempted murdered could not be dissolved because they
had a child - And SHE was REQUIRED to reconcile with her husband.
Another archbishop affirmed the decision - but then offered to annul the
marriage for a $100,000 gift to HIM (Personal - not to the church)
As the church organist and Usher - I can tell you things that would
curdle your blood. Even when I was a young altar boy- we were told which
priests we were not allowed to be alone with - and I am 68. What I
witnessed - and was beaten for when I attempted to tell someone(remember
- my fathers family were priests) - I will never forget. I KNEW how
those priests were being moved around. And yet - I remained in the
church for years. I even donated my services as organist.
In the usa - we have a law called "depraved indifference" - in which is
YOU have knowledge of a major crime - and you do not inform the
authorities of it - you can be tried for the crime. One of those
convicted for the Oklahoma city bombing was convicted under that law -
which I consider just.
Today - there will be over 100 children too young to speak much less
defend themselves - will be molested or abused by adults in the USA
alone - and thousands more around the world.
And - supposedly we have a LOVING GOD who knows everything
SO - IF that "ALL LOVING" GOD just looks down and watches it happen - he
meets the definition of a pervert. If he fails to report it - he is also
a depraved indifferent.
I have spent MY life taking care of kids - who I feel are the most
important thing on the planet. I had 8 of my own - and have been either
foster parent or legal guardian for 16 more (At 68 - I still have 4 in
house). I was a scout leader - a little league coach - a big brother -
and I donated land from my farm for the local little league fields of my
community - as well as for the YMCA as well.
IF a "loving" being is capable of helping little children and doesn't -
I have NO use for them.
SO which is it - your god is NOT capable of protecting the children - or
doesn't care? If you read your belief - he ordered his people to take
the little children of his enemies and smash their heads against the
rocks - and enjoy doing it. I will NEVER worship such a monster.
That you do only tells me what type of person YOU are!
Thommadura
And MY guess is that YOU were never jewish or never actually had any
knowledge of their religion- YOU continue to interpret YOUR christian
scripture in a way they would not.
My second wife was Jewish - and I KNOW what they are taught.
Quoting christian PSALMS -(Actually they derive from Egyptian but that
is a different story) - is not proof of your statement.
What YOu are doing is projecting your christian beliefs on the Jewish
faith - which is NONSENSE. Quoting what you THINK supports your
statements from the bible - is simply using christian nonsense you call
scripture - to make it look like YOUR belief is true - and IT IS NOT
jewish belief.
I certainly do not accept YOUR interpretation of Jewish scripture -
since YOU are NOT of their faith - and would certainly SKEW your
statements to YOUR own beliefs. I will certainly take the referrence and
supported statements of a practicing jew ABOUT Judaism - to those of a
christian who is clearly misinterpreting christian scripture.
The person who wrote Judaism 101 - is both Jewish - and did the research
to support the site - and posted extensive referrences. ANd her site is
supported by lots of others.
http://www.angelfire.com/md3/baruchgershom/ynotj.html
http://www.messiahtruth.com/
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/questions-a-answers-primary-234
where most of the below comes from
THe fact is - the christ COULD NOT be the Messiah
1 - The messiah was supposed to REBUILD the temple in Jerusalem((Ezekiel
37:26 - 27) - but at the supposed time of the christ - it was intact -
and had not yet been destroyed the second time by the Romans.
2 - He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to
Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
Are all Jews living in Israel? Have all Jews EVER lived in Israel since
the time of Jesus?
3 - He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn
war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
Have you seen a newspaper lately? Are we living in a state of complete
world peace? Has there ever been peace since the time of Jesus?
4 - He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon,
his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep
with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue
from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a
house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom
forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13
Since geneology was through the father - at the time - christians claim
that the father of the christ was their god - not Joseph. A direct
descendant of DAVID would have to be HUMAN sired.
5- He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and
serve one God - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to
another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
There are still billions of people in the world today who adhere to
paganistic and polytheistic religions (Like christianity). It is clear
that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold.
Linda Lee
> On 1/31/2010 6:13 AM,LindaLeewrote:
You're ignorant and have a closed mind.
>
> The bible is no more proven than any other religious scripture - and YOU
> reject most religious scripture as MYTH (Zeus - after all - is the MAIN
> god - unless YOU pick Jupiter instead!)
>
> I simply apply the SAME standards of belief to all religious scripture
> and use the same requirement of proof that YOU use to deny the scripture
> of other religions against the bible and christian scripture.
>
> And as I note again - you still have yet to add a single item to the
> list of things you can ABSOLUTLEY prove in a testable and verifiable
> manner about your supernatural gods -
>
>
> A bishop told my son that he could not marry his wife - because - EVEN
> THOUGH his wife's first husband had attempted to KILL HER - and was
> convicted of the crime and was in prison for life (She almost died)- her
> marriage to her attempted murdered could not be dissolved because they
> had a child - And SHE was REQUIRED to reconcile with her husband.
>
> Another archbishop affirmed the decision - but then offered to annul the
> marriage for a $100,000 gift to HIM (Personal - not to the church)
>
> As the church organist and Usher - I can tell you things that would
> curdle your blood. Even when I was a young altar boy- we were told which
> priests we were not allowed to be alone with - and I am 68. What I
> witnessed - and was beaten for when I attempted to tell someone(remember
> - my fathers family were priests) - I will never forget. I KNEW how
> those priests were being moved around. And yet - I remained in the
> church for years. I even donated my services as organist.
>
> In the usa - we have a law called "depraved indifference" - in which is
> YOU have knowledge of a major crime - and you do not inform the
> authorities of it - you can be tried for the crime. One of those
> convicted for the Oklahoma city bombing was convicted under that law -
> which I consider just.
>
> Today - there will be over 100 children too young to speak much less
> defend themselves - will be molested or abused by adults in the USA
> alone - and thousands more around the world.
>
> And - supposedly we have a LOVING GOD who knows everything
>
> SO - IF that "ALL LOVING" GOD just looks down and watches it happen
So you confirm what I said in the following, you never loved God, and
you came to illogically reject God because people are evil and there
is suffering and death in the world!
"What convinced you there is no God? Your son? What convinced him? Was
it that some of those in your church appeared to you to be evil? Was
it that there is suffering and death in this world? What?
I find atheists curious, as they likely find believers. (And if you
maintain for a certainty that the Scriptures are a nonsensical pack of
lies, you are atheist, not agnostic.) Many don't appear to be stupid
people, but the reasons they give for rejecting belief in God are
often stupid, as if they don't even understand the nature of this
temporal world. For instance, if there were a God, there would not be
evil, i.e. suffering and death in this world; my mother wouldn't have
died if there was a God loved me, my child would not have died if
there was a God who loved me; my life wouldn't be so miserable if
there were a God who loved me, I would never have suffered etc., etc.,
when the Bible never promises anything like that for those living in
the flesh. IF there was no death, suffering, etc. in this world, it
would be what is termed Heaven. But everything living in the flesh
must one day die, either by accident, disease, physical defect, the
acts of evil people, or just from a plain wearing out of the physical
body."
- he
> meets the definition of a pervert. If he fails to report it - he is also
> a depraved indifferent.
>
> I have spent MY life taking care of kids -
Oh so you have judged God and found him wanting. You are better than
God. ROFLOL! You're as ignorant as they come; the focus of God's love
is on our spirits, not our bodies in this temporal world; He wants to
grant eternal life to those who choose not to remain evil and who
return to Him.
You have learned absolutely nothing, and I do not believe you have
ever read the Scriptures; you've just heard rumors about what they
say. Your understanding of the Scriptures is completely NIL.
> who I feel are the most
> important thing on the planet. I had 8 of my own - and have been either
> foster parent or legal guardian for 16 more (At 68 - I still have 4 in
> house). I was a scout leader - a little league coach - a big brother -
> and I donated land from my farm for the local little league fields of my
> community - as well as for the YMCA as well.
>
> IF a "loving" being is capable of helping little children and doesn't -
> I have NO use for them.
>
> SO which is it - your god is NOT capable of protecting the children - or
> doesn't care? If you read your belief - he ordered his people to take
> the little children of his enemies and smash their heads against the
> rocks - and enjoy doing it. I will NEVER worship such a monster.
I don't believe the prophets uttered things like that. You reject all
the Scriptures as nonsense, so what PROOF do you have that Ezra, who
re-instituted the Pentateuch, didn't add things like that? Or the
scribes who the prophets said wrote lying things, likely for the kings
of Israel who were not worshippers of God?
Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with
us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in
vain ["an untruth", "sham"].
Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo,
they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
> That you do only tells me what type of person YOU are!
Atheists like you are all alike; judgmental even of God, hateful,
delusionally self-righteous, wholly ignorant, illogical, and dumb as
mud, in other words EVIL to the point of psychosis. And that you know
at heart you are evil and will come under God's judgment is the real
reason you reject and obviously hate God. I'll let God judge between
you and me, and you won't have any choice in the matter of His
Judgment, and will come out seriously lacking.
Linda Lee
> On 1/31/2010 7:50 AM,LindaLeewrote:
And I already showed you the illogic and contradictory errors in it,
so big whoop! She's a poor researcher as well as a poor writer who
can't reconcile her 'facts'.
And you act as if Judaism has some validity that Christianity doesn't
and then you turn around and claim it is all myth. You are just as
illogical and false just as the author of Judaism 101.
I like how you snip what you can't refute to repeat yourself once
again. I like that technique; let me snip your garbage and repeat
myself once again:
I think Kabbalists and Jewish mystics had other ideas, which they
developed from interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures.
The RAMBAM's 13 Articles of Faith, on which Judaism now rests, says
nothing about whether or not the Messiah would be divine, saying only
"The Messiah will come".
> The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David
> (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben
> David" (mashiach, son of David).
And many ancient Jewish writers expected two messiahs, one a son of
David, one a son of Joseph, ignorant of the fact that he would be
both.
From http://www.chaim.org/2messiah.htm
<begin quote>
"The Two-Messiah Theory
When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something
very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who
was the "Son of David" and another who was the "Son of Joseph." Though
one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of
the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah
is posited, the "Son of Joseph" or "Son of Ephraim," who is the one
who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled
with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53
and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in
the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be
reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his
mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect?
The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem" and served as Professor of Anthropology at
Dropsie University,1said this of the two-messiah theory:
"When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic
times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the
Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the
Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the
Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise
the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories
and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben
David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to
life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and
will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the
Messianic era of bliss."2
There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects
of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement
for sin. He is now expanding his kingdom and conquering the Gentiles,
not by the sword, but by preaching. (In this century alone over
50,000,000 Chinese have come to faith in the God of Israel through
Jesus, even while being persecuted.) Messiah's Kingdom is growing
tremendously among the Koreans and in Africa and South America. Many
earthly rulers bow down before Messiah Jesus. One day he will return
to judge the earth and to bring in his Kingdom in all its fullness.
Know him now as your sin-bearer and bow before him today as your King,
and when he returns you will not need to fear the judgement, because
he came to receive the judgement in the place of those who trust him."
<end quote>
So you will believe the descendants of those Jews who rejected the
Messiah. That's rather naive. What you quoted is the Jews' present
belief, which is *designed* to counteract the well known Christian
belief in Yahashua` the Messiah as God incarnate as the Saviour. Want
some indication that my allegation. The author of that article at
Judaism 101 you quoted thinks the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT MESSIAH
IS: "But ABOVE ALL, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or
other supernatural being".
The author of Judaism 101 also seems ignorant of the fact that God
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=E...
Linda Lee
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of
an ass.
Zec 9:10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse
from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall
speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even
to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;
and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women
ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the
residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those
nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of
Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives
shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west,
and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall
remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
From http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/15_5/returningking
<Begin quote>
"The Returning King: The "Two Messiahs" in Zechariah by Garrett Smith
May 1, 2004
This is an archived article. It originally appeared on May 1, 2004.
Some information may be outdated.
Literature throughout the ages is replete with stories of mysterious
and enigmatic kings, cryptic characters whose rule is often full of
uncertain sorrows, yet strangely hopeful. Aragorn, the ranger-turned-
ruler in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one
example. There were those who believed in Aragorn's right to the
throne from the very beginning and others who refused to submit to his
rule until the very end, when he proved himself in battle. For much of
the series, his true identity is cloaked in mystery. Is he a gallant
king, or an honorable man, or both?
Throughout history human imagination has been captivated by such
figures, and for good reason. Sometimes imagination hints at the
greater reality.
The Bible presents us with a mysterious king as well. Some of the most
seemingly enigmatic, yet detailed, descriptions of this king occur in
the prophetic book of Zechariah, written over 2,500 years ago. Over
the centuries various attempts have been made to explain this kingly
figure. Some have concluded that he is the long-awaited Messiah.
Others say we can't know anything about him for sure. Still others say
he is the carpenter from Nazareth about whom the whole world wonders.
Why did this ancient Jewish prophet obsess over this kingly character?
Is it possible to understand this seemingly inscrutable figure? What
could his kingship mean to us today? Let's take a look.
A Bit of Background
Though Zechariah was born during the exile of Israel to Babylon, his
writing occurred once the Jewish people were back in the Land. Jewish
tradition maintains that the prophet Zechariah was a man of the Great
Synagogue, the group that is believed to have carefully preserved the
Hebrew Scriptures and traditions during the period after the exile.
Along with remembering the past, Zechariah, whose name means "The Lord
Remembers," speaks much in terms of God's promises for Israel's
future. According to Zechariah, this future for Israel includes
eventual total restoration of the Jewish people to her former glory.
Zechariah is trying to preserve hope. And for Israel this hope is
inextricably linked to a king who was yet to come. Zechariah chooses
to focus much of his writing describing this coming king.
Most of us today have learned to distrust our leaders. With the United
States in the throes of an election year, cynicism, skepticism and
disillusionment are the reigning forces. And yet, deep down, most of
us could admit we wish there were someone who had our best interests
at heart, a leader who truly desired to improve our lot and could
actually make things better. It's the "better" that we all long for.
What Zechariah tells us is that there is such a person. He is the king
who is to come, the fulfillment of our hopes for a leader who will not
disappoint us. Since that person has been promised to us, it's well
worth considering the details of that promise so that we can recognize
this king when and if he comes.
Zechariah 9:9-10 -- A King of Peace
Israel certainly had her share of disappointing kings. The books of
Samuel, Kings and Chronicles attest to this history. But in Zechariah
9:9-10, the prophet points to a coming king who is unique.
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
And He will speak peace to the nations;
And His dominion will be from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth."
This isn't just any king. The prophet tells the people of Israel to be
joyful, to get excited, because the promised one, the one sent from
God, the long awaited king, is coming. And so this passage has been
interpreted as messianic; that is, it is often supposed that the king
in this passage is none other than the Messiah, the savior of Israel.
Traditional Judaism teaches that, "The messiah is a G-d fearing, pious
Jew, who is both a Torah scholar and a great leader. He is to be a
direct descendent of King David, anointed as the new Jewish King. (In
fact, the Hebrew word for messiah 'Moshiach' means 'anointed one.')"1
Many Jewish people do not give much thought to the coming of a Messiah
anymore, and those who do often picture him as a mighty conqueror,
even a superhero-type figure. But here in Zechariah 9 the picture is
very different the king is not coming to fight a war; he comes in
gentleness and meekness. He is the king over all the earth and he has
all authority, but he comes in this humble fashion, riding on a baby
donkey, as opposed to a chariot or even a great horse.
This passage of Scripture provides a picture of a Messiah-king, a
deliverer of salvation, gently offering his kingship to Israel and to
the world he is a man of peace for all peoples. He will proclaim peace
to all the nations, not just to Israel.
In our world today peaceful people may win prizes, but they don't
necessarily command authority. We've come to expect a certain amount
of confidence, even arrogance, from our leaders. We expect them to do
what they have to do to maintain order. Especially in Israel and the
Middle East, it is difficult to fathom that someone could come to such
power on peaceful terms. A king who does not fight? Yet in this
passage, that is exactly what is promised.
Zechariah 14:2-4 -- A King of War
Later, however, Zechariah gives another description of the coming
king, a picture quite different from that of chapter 9. Let's take a
brief look at the context for his statement:
"For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and
the city will be captured. Then the Lord will go forth and fight
against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that
day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of
Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its
middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the
mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the
south."
This picture is very much like an epic battle scene from a movie full
of bloodshed and tragedy and triumph. Then in verses 8-9 we read:
"And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of
them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea;
it will be in summer as well as in winter. And the Lord will be king
over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His
name the only one."
Chapters 9 and 14 are the central passages in Zechariah telling of
this king who will reign over all the earth. In chapter 9 the king is
humble, but in chapter 14 he is a force to be reckoned with. In the
latter picture, the king is a conqueror; he comes in wrath, meting out
judgment to the enemies of Israel. This is perhaps a more traditional
picture of Messiah, a mighty hero who fights on our behalf.
Mysteriously, this passage seems to suggest that this Messiah-king is
none other than the Lord God himself, God coming to fight on behalf of
his people (see page 8). In any case, we are presented with a
dramatically different picture of the king here than the one we see in
Zechariah 9.
Two Descriptions, Two Kings?
So the question is, does this king who reigns over all the earth come
gently, riding on a donkey in peace? Or in great wrath, ready to do
battle? Is Zechariah contradicting himself? This is a big puzzle for
Jewish scholars as well. But this is not the only place in the
Scriptures where we find seemingly divergent pictures of Messiah (see
chart on page 5). For example, Micah 5 tells us he is born in
Bethlehem, the city of David. But in Daniel 7 the prophet tells us he
will arrive, riding on the clouds of heaven. Is the Messiah going to
be cut off (killed) as predicted in Daniel 9, or will he come in regal
splendor and reign forever, as Isaiah 9 tells us? Is he the suffering
servant of Isaiah 53 or a royal king portrayed in Psalm 2?
In response to these two seemingly opposite pictures of Messiah, some
rabbis decided that there must be two messiahs, the Messiah ben Yosef
who would come and suffer and Messiah ben David, who would come as a
conquering king.
Another Jewish tradition explains the two contrasting portraits of
Messiah like this: "If the people of Israel will be righteous, the
Messiah will come in the clouds of Heaven. If they will not be
righteous, he will come as a poor man riding upon an ass" (Sanhedrin
98a).
Are such explanations necessary or is it possible that one individual
might "fit the bill" of both pictures; someone who would be both a
king of peace and a king of power, a humble servant and a conqueror?
If so, what would this extraordinary person look like?
The Once and Future King
There is still another Jewish view concerning the two pictures of the
Messiah-king that accurately fulfills the portrait we see in Zechariah
and elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. This view actually predates
the other two mentioned. It's the position presented in the New
Testament.
The writers of the New Testament were Jewish people, living in the
first century, who believed that the prophecies in the Hebrew
Scriptures described one Messiah, a great king who was to come twice,
first as a servant, then as conqueror. They believed that Y'shua
(Jesus) was the fulfillment of both expectations.
Y'shua was not a typical king. His was a life marked by humility. He
was a man of gentleness and peace. But the peace he offered was
different from what most people think about it was a peace that comes
from the depth of personal spiritual solutions that Y'shua offered to
people who would follow him.
"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world
gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be
fearful" (John 14:27).
"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which is
lost" (Luke 19:10).
Near the close of Y'shua's life on earth, he called to his disciples
to get a donkey with its colt. Just before Passover, Jesus rode into
Jerusalem on a colt of a donkey, fulfilling the prophecy Zechariah
gave more than five hundred years earlier. And the people shouted and
rejoiced:
"Hosha-na to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME
OF THE LORD; Hosha-na in the highest!" (Matthew 21:9).
The people were shouting, "Save us!" They understood that their king
had come and that he was offering powerful, life-changing salvation to
those who would welcome him. In fact, the name "Y'shua" means "God
saves."
Though Y'shua did not usher in an age of "peace on earth" as many
hoped then and many wish for today, he did offer peace with God to
everyone willing to trust in him and the atonement for sin he offered
through his death and resurrection.
Y'shua was a man of peace, but he was also a man of strength. He
boldly proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, even
though he knew that he would be crucified for these claims.
That's because Y'shua also knew that he possessed the power of an
indestructible life. Though he was to die, he knew that he would rise
again. Consider his words to a Jewish audience:
"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it
away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority
to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again " (John
10:17b-18d).
It was a hard claim to believe and yet many witnessed Jesus'
resurrection and were willing to die proclaiming the truth of his
life. Today, millions of people around the world wait for his return.
What will that return look like? According to Zechariah it will be a
day of judgment, but also a day of deliverance for those who honor the
king:
"Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked
Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord
Almighty " (Zechariah 14:6).
So the king came first to offer his kingship, to give people the
chance to enthrone him. One day he'll come again to take by force what
is rightfully his. Like a parent dealing with children: the father or
mother hopes the children will obey on their own, so they begin
dealing with them gently, but when the children refuse to submit, the
parents insist and enforce their will with resolve. This is the
picture Zechariah paints of the king who has come, the one who will
come again.
Conclusion: Confusion or Clarity?
The book of Zechariah does not explicitly state that Messiah will come
twice, yet we do see two pictures of the king, coming once as a man of
peace and again as a conquering king. Without a doubt these passages
should cause one to stop and think. Is it necessary to believe in two
messiahs? Or is it possible that he came to live among us two thousand
years ago and that he'll come again to be enthroned as the victorious,
reigning king?
In the third and final book of The Lord of the Rings, after a long,
wearying battle, Aragorn finally takes up his throne. And Tolkien
writes this scene wherein one of the hobbits encounters Gandalf, the
wizard he thought had been vanquished:
"Gandalf! I thought you were dead! But then I thought I was dead
myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue? What's happened to the
world?" "A great Shadow has departed," said Gandalf, and then he
laughed, and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land
It fell upon his ears like the echo of all the joys he had ever
known.")
Tolkien's words are a good illustration of the yearning in the human
soul for a time when all that is wrong will be made right. But it will
take an extraordinary individual to accomplish this, a figure like the
one portrayed in the mosaic of messianic prophecies we are given in
the Hebrew Scriptures, and like the one we confront in the accounts of
Y'shua's life.
Those who believe Y'shua is the Messiah have seen how he fulfills
these expectations. Because of what he did in his first coming, we can
be assured that he will return. Yes, the king will return."
<end quote>
Thommadura
Sorry - but I do not have a closed mind - YOU have not provided anything
PROVEN to consider - you are the closed mind here.
No - I did not confirm it - I told you it took 35 years to convince me
otherwise.
>
> "What convinced you there is no God?
That one is easy - I asked for PROOF of a god = I continuously ask for
PROOF of a god - from all theists - from all religions. Proof that is
testable and verifiable by all - regardless of their past beliefs. Proof
that would require every theist on earth to accept it.
ANd to date - not one of them have provided ANY proof.
WHat they do is what YOU do -= evade and avoid the question - or quote
the scripture -= which is simply a compilation of their beliefs.
SCripture -= being beleif - is not proof - and never will be. I have no
reason to accept one religions scripture over any other.
To date - what I do know is that ALL religions and ALL gods are false.
That I got from theists. They all assure me that every OTHER religion
except theirs is false. ANd others reject the religons of the first people.
In fact - christians themselves have determined that every christian
sect is false as well.
Pope Pius IX in an encyclical(which is the Infallible word of the christ
in their religion) in 1854 said this:
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
flood."
A pope is clearly far more knowledgeable and studied on the subject than
YOU are = as well as any one else in this group.
Yet - non - catholics claim that catholics are not even christians (the
Catholic church defines what a christian is).
>
> I find atheists curious,
Still not an atheist - too bad you apparently cannot read and remember
anything
as they likely find believers. (And if you
> maintain for a certainty that the Scriptures are a nonsensical pack of
> lies, you are atheist, not agnostic.)
No - I am an agnostic - because I accept only what is PROVEN to be true
- even about scriptures. YOUR personal prejudice aside - there are so
many contradictory scriptures - and some things that are PROVEN to be a
pack of lies (Creation is a great example of that one) - that I cannot
just accept the scriptures of any particular religion without further
support. Without proof - your scriptures remain a BELIEF - and one you
apparently cannot support with proof - just like all other major religions.
Remember - there is no single overall accepted interpretation of the
christian scriptures - which are a product of the Roman Catholic church
(no one has added anything they did not choose for the bible - although
they rejected HUNDREDS of other stories). AND - they are not the ONLY
choice - there are Hundreds of thousands of different religions - over
39,000 different christian ones alone that cannot agree - and millions
of gods so far named. FOr the same reasons you reject Islam - I can
reject christianity - the story is nonsense.
Many don't appear to be stupid
> people, but the reasons they give for rejecting belief in God are
> often stupid, as if they don't even understand the nature of this
> temporal world.
Again -you claim knowledge for which you provide no support - just like
Muslims and Hindus - and others do.
I certainly understand the actual world - and anything else beyond that
is belief for which you make lots of claims - but provide no proof of.
For instance, if there were a God, there would not be
> evil, i.e. suffering and death in this world; my mother wouldn't have
> died if there was a God loved me, my child would not have died if
> there was a God who loved me; my life wouldn't be so miserable if
> there were a God who loved me, I would never have suffered etc., etc.,
> when the Bible never promises anything like that for those living in
> the flesh. IF there was no death, suffering, etc. in this world, it
> would be what is termed Heaven. But everything living in the flesh
> must one day die, either by accident, disease, physical defect, the
> acts of evil people, or just from a plain wearing out of the physical
> body."
I is so nice that you talk to yourself so much. I never said any of
those things - you did.
>
>
> - he
>> meets the definition of a pervert. If he fails to report it - he is also
>> a depraved indifferent.
>>
>> I have spent MY life taking care of kids -
>
> Oh so you have judged God and found him wanting.
No - still none to judge - prove otherwise.
You are better than
> God. ROFLOL! You're as ignorant as they come;
Again - until you provide something you can prove I am ignorant of -
your statements are simply delusional belief
the focus of God's love
> is on our spirits, not our bodies in this temporal world;
PROOF - still NONE?
He wants to
> grant eternal life to those who choose not to remain evil and who
> return to Him.
>
> You have learned absolutely nothing, and I do not believe you have
> ever read the Scriptures; you've just heard rumors about what they
> say. Your understanding of the Scriptures is completely NIL.
Again - I know more about scriptures than you probably do - you simply
accept SOME of them (THose of a particular religion) without proof.
Since I have read scripture of LOTS of religions - I request MORE than
they offer. There are lots of problems with all scripture
However - a logical person would look at the claims of a religion and
then look at their scripture in light of those claims.
THe christian religions claims that their ONE GOD - has no beginning and
no end. Based on that - a god could not be BORN (no beginning) - nor
could have died on a cross (No end). Easy to reject the story of the
christ. Stike one. ANd - if you claim he was totally human on earth -
then HUMANS cannot raise a rotting corpse from the grave from verbal
command - I invite YOU to do it.
The christians claim their god is PERFECT - all knowing - and almighty -
all just - and all fair - and the rest of the "alls".
Yet - it is NOT fair to blame one person for the actions of another that
they had no knowledge of. That is called quilt bu association and is
inherently unjust. So - the mere idea of original sin is against the
nature claimed of a god. Strike TWO
THe christians claim that their god is and always was ALL KNOWING -
past - present - and future. IF that is the case -= then there is NO
free will for anyone - since the only things anyone (including the god)
can do is what is already known - there are NO other choices possible.
Even the god cannot change his mind and do something he does not already
know - or he is NOT all knowing. ANd that means he is not almighty -
since he cannot change his mind. Stike Three
The christians claim that their god is perfect and all knowing - and the
bible is the INSPIRED word of that god - which should then be perfect
and all knowing. Yet - there are numerous errors in the scripture - both
the old and new testament - that simply are NOT true at all. I need only
one example to eliminate the bible as being truth - since it would ALL
have to be truth - but there are numerous examples
AMong them
1 - THe mustard seed is not the smallest seed - but it does not grow
into a tree either.
2 - THe earth is NOT built on pillars - and is not immovable in the sky.
3 - There is NO place you can climb to on earth where you can then see
ALL the kingdoms of the earth.
4 - The sun does not move over the earth - the earth orbits the sun
5 - Morning and evening on earth are caused by the spinning of the earth
on its axis in relation to the sun - and therefore morning and evening
could not exist BEFORE the sun was created (notice I did not say light
and dark).
WHat were the christs last three words when he supposedly died on the
cross - apparently the eye witness of the gospels cannot agree on that.
Who was the eye witness to the resurrection - NO ONE.
Who found the empty tomb - again - the gospels do not agree.
Nazareth did not exist as a town at that supposed time.
IF there was a worldwide flood = why is it that we have complete written
in stone records of the Egyptian civilization from BEFORE the creation
of the world based on the timeline of the Tanakh - that continue to the
present without such a flood? This is year 5771 on the jewish calendar -
which supposedly starts the day after creation. AND - if you follow the
timeline in the bible - the earth was created about 4004 BCE. And I
have not even started into the fact that the earth is Billions of years old.
When is the last time you allowed a third party to kill your only son -
in order to prove you love someone. That alone is about as illogical as
it gets. And that assumes it was a son. IF you really believe that there
is ONLY ONE GOD - then that god was dead - something that again is not
part of your belief about gods.
I could go on - but then you will simply attack me - and not provide
anything provable again
>
>
>> who I feel are the most
>> important thing on the planet. I had 8 of my own - and have been either
>> foster parent or legal guardian for 16 more (At 68 - I still have 4 in
>> house). I was a scout leader - a little league coach - a big brother -
>> and I donated land from my farm for the local little league fields of my
>> community - as well as for the YMCA as well.
>>
>> IF a "loving" being is capable of helping little children and doesn't -
>> I have NO use for them.
>>
>> SO which is it - your god is NOT capable of protecting the children - or
>> doesn't care? If you read your belief - he ordered his people to take
>> the little children of his enemies and smash their heads against the
>> rocks - and enjoy doing it. I will NEVER worship such a monster.
>
> I don't believe the prophets uttered things like that.
I really do not care what you thing - what can you PROVE?
You reject all
> the Scriptures as nonsense, so what PROOF do you have that Ezra, who
> re-instituted the Pentateuch, didn't add things like that? Or the
> scribes who the prophets said wrote lying things, likely for the kings
> of Israel who were not worshippers of God?
I really do not care - since YOU reject most scripture of most religions
- why should I accept YOURS -which is not proven to be any different?
Certainly - I have asked YOU to provide a list of everything YOU can
prove in a testable and verfiable manner about your god - and you have
NOT posted anything.
If you HAD proof - you would have posted it long ago - Linda
ANd that you evade the question - snip it - and ignore it - simple
confirms that YOU have none
>
> Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with
> us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in
> vain ["an untruth", "sham"].
> Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo,
> they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
>
>
>> That you do only tells me what type of person YOU are!
>
>
> Atheists like you are all alike; judgmental even of God,
Again - still not an atheist - you theists are all alike - you cannot
attack MY being an agnostic - since we only accept proven truth - and
will always have TRUTH on our side - something YOU cannot claim.
And since YOU have yet to prove a god exists - we are not judgmental of
a god - there are none to be judgmental about.
hateful,
> delusionally self-righteous, wholly ignorant, illogical, and dumb as
> mud, in other words EVIL to the point of psychosis. And that you know
> at heart you are evil and will come under God's judgment is the real
> reason you reject and obviously hate God.
Not at all - I have nothing to be ashamed of in my life. I am neither
evil or deluded. And I have no reason to hate things that do not exist
in any provable way.
YOU are the one who makes all sorts of delusionally self rightous claims
about your god - and provide NO PROOF of any of it - other than quoting
more belief of your scripture which is NOT proof.
In the end - we will judge ourselves - and it will be by our actions
that we will do so. The number of prayers we said will not be any more a
factor than the name of the spook of the time you believed it.
Linda Lee
> On 1/31/2010 9:39 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I find atheists curious,
>
> Still not an atheist - too bad you apparently cannot read and remember
> anything
>
> as they likely find believers. (And if you >
> > maintain for a certainty that the Scriptures are a nonsensical pack of
> > lies, you are atheist, not agnostic.)
>
> No - I am an agnostic
Baloney. You are atheist. Why do you balk at the word? Likely because
you delude yourself you can absolve yourself of all responsibility for
your rejection and hatred of God.
>
> > Many don't appear to be stupid
> > people, but the reasons they give for rejecting belief in God are
> > often stupid, as if they don't even understand the nature of this
> > temporal world.
>
> For instance, if there were a God, there would not be
> > evil, i.e. suffering and death in this world; my mother wouldn't have
> > died if there was a God loved me, my child would not have died if
> > there was a God who loved me; my life wouldn't be so miserable if
> > there were a God who loved me, I would never have suffered etc., etc.,
> > when the Bible never promises anything like that for those living in
> > the flesh. IF there was no death, suffering, etc. in this world, it
> > would be what is termed Heaven. But everything living in the flesh
> > must one day die, either by accident, disease, physical defect, the
> > acts of evil people, or just from a plain wearing out of the physical
> > body."
>
> I is so nice ...
No, you're not. You're a child of the Devil uttering a pack of lies
against God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love
me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself,
but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot
hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not
in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Thommadura
No - you simply showed YOU bias toward the christian interpretation
-that real jews reject.
>
> And you act as if Judaism has some validity that Christianity doesn't
> and then you turn around and claim it is all myth. You are just as
> illogical and false just as the author of Judaism 101.
Again - I never said ANY religion has any validity - I simply know what
the jews believe - based on personal knowledge - my wife was jewish. But
instead - I chose to also use clear researched
>
> I like how you snip what you can't refute to repeat yourself once
> again. I like that technique; let me snip your garbage and repeat
> myself once again:
I snipped things that made no points - which you never od
>
> I think]
Either you can PROVE it is true - or you cannot - I do not accept what a
christian THINKS - over what a JEW does - about the jewish religion
Kabbalists and Jewish mystics had other ideas, which they
> developed from interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures.
>
> The RAMBAM's 13 Articles of Faith, on which Judaism now rests,
Sorry - that is NOT TRUE - Judaism rests on its scripture - and
traditions - Maimonidies only summarized basic tenets of the religion -
not the entire belief
says
> nothing about whether or not the Messiah would be divine, saying only
> "The Messiah will come".
So - it is not an all inclusive things - nor was it presented by the
hierarchy of jusaism either.
There is NO place in the bible where the christ claims to be a GOD either.
>
>> The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David
>> (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben
>> David" (mashiach, son of David).
>
> And many ancient Jewish writers expected two messiahs, one a son of
> David, one a son of Joseph, ignorant of the fact that he would be
> both.
And the christ is supposed to be part of the ONE GOD - with no beginning
- who cannot be of ANY bloodline on earth.
Therefore your TWO messiah story is rejected as false -
As I noted - the christ does not fulfill the basic requirement - and is
not the messiah - who has NOT come yet.
That's rather naive. What you quoted is the Jews' present
> belief, which is *designed* to counteract the well known Christian
> belief in Yahashua` the Messiah as God incarnate as the Saviour. Want
> some indication that my allegation. The author of that article at
> Judaism 101 you quoted thinks the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT MESSIAH
> IS: "But ABOVE ALL, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or
> other supernatural being".
No - their scripture from ancient times clearly eliminated the christ as
the messiah
>
> The author of Judaism 101 also seems ignorant of the fact that God
> always maintained
> he was Israel's real king, and the future Messiah would be the
> everlasting King of Israel.
Again - not pertinent - since the christ cannot be the messiah - if you
claim him to be a god.
>
> And HOW will their expected Messiah do all the things expected of him
> that author listed when, as Dan. 9:26 says, he will be "cut off" i.e.
> destroyed? Dan. 9:26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall
> Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince
> that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
Apparently - the jewish god is able to do what he wants as well.
>
> It is their theology that no longer makes any sense,
In your opinion - but YOURS makes no more sense than theirs does - that
you prove
and it has become
> that way because they have altered their interpretations of it, so
> that they make no sense in any respect, to try to negate Christ.
> Their own Scriptures, MANY TIMES, contradict their current belief that
> the Saviour would not be divine. I'm not going to waste my time by
> going over every one of them with you, but I will give a few examples.
Yet - you provide again no example
>
> Isaiah Chapter 53 is one example. Now the claim is it (the "servant")
> is referring to the nation of Israel when that is nonsensical because
> Israel cannot save Israel, and a mere man cannot atone for the sins of
> Israel.
WHY NOT - if that person is sent by their god to do it - and their god
is almighty - there is NO reason to accept your statement
That was shown with Moses, who offered to be blotted out of
> the book of life if God would forgive the sinful Israelites; the offer
> was refused.
>
> Exo 32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people
> have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
> Exo 32:32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot
> me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
> Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against
> me, him will I blot out of my book.
> Exo 32:34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I
> have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee:
> nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon
> them.
I see nothing in the above that states the messiah will be divine -
>
> Some further evidence concerning the Israelites expectation that they
> believed God Himself would come as their Messiah and King is in Psa.
> 110:1. In Psa. 110:1 God is speaking of himself in the third person,
No - scripture is written by humans - I do not accept anything as the
word of a god - unless it is PROVEN to be so - and YOU have yet to
provide any proof of that one.
> and both words used to describe him, according to 'The Jewish
> Encyclopedia', are divine names for God only (YHVH and Adon, a form of
> Adonai):
Still no proof a divinity was required
>
> The following on Adonai from The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Adon" (as
> well as Adonai) is also �a divine name� and the word 'Adon' is
> translated �Lord� in Ps. 110:1 in reference to David's Lord.
>
> �Adonai ...occurs as a name of God apart from its use by the Masorites
> as a substituted reading for Yhwh. It was, probably, at first Adoni
> (�my Lord�) or Adonai (�my Lord,� plural of majesty), and later
> assumed this form, as a proper name, to distinguish it from other uses
> of the same word. The simple form ADON, with and without the article,
> also occurs as a DIVINE NAME.� - see 'Names of God' - 'Adonai and
> Baal' � 'The Jewish Encyclopedia' -
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=E...
>
> Psa. 110:1 says, �<A Psalm of David.> The LORD [YHVH] said unto my
> Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
> footstool�.
Again - that is not proof that the messiah has to be divine - only that
a god sent him and supports him
>
> Here again God is speaking of himself in the third person.
Which itself is meaningless - but you get off on it.
However - these are HUMAN created words - no god is proven to actually
be speaking
God is
> speaking and is saying that when He dwells with us, we will know that
> God has "sent" Him just as the Messiah refers to having been "sent" by
> the Father. (He is not speaking of Zechariah as this is talking about
> the endtimes and has nothing to do with whether or not Zechariah would
> be received as a true prophet):
> Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I
> will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
> Zec 2:11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day,
> and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and
> thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
>
> Zec. 12:10, GOD SAID, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and
> upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
> supplications: and they shall look upon ***** ME ***** whom they have
> pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
> son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness
> for his firstborn".
>
> And Psalm 22, a Psalm of David that Christ quoted on the cross, is
> another example, as it describes the death/crucifixion and nothing
> like this happened to DAVID.
>
> But I don't expect you to be convinced, as you are blind to the truth
As I said - the christ cannot be the messiah - based on other scripture
of the jewish religion - so YOU went out of your way for nothing
Thommadura
That you equate Tolkein with religious scripture is at least being
honest - since both are FICTIONAL things that are not proven otherwise.
Tolkein called his books "fantasy" - an apt description or religious
scripture as well.
Linda Lee
...nothing that interests me. I'm not reading your crap. Go on your
way towards the wide gate.
Thommadura
> On Jan 31, 10:31 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2010 9:39 AM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I find atheists curious,
>>
>> Still not an atheist - too bad you apparently cannot read and remember
>> anything
>>
>> as they likely find believers. (And if you>
>>> maintain for a certainty that the Scriptures are a nonsensical pack of
>>> lies, you are atheist, not agnostic.)
>>
>> No - I am an agnostic
>
>
> Baloney. You are atheist. Why do you balk at the word? Likely because
> you delude yourself you can absolve yourself of all responsibility for
> your rejection and hatred of God.
I am not an atheist - YOU are the one who is baloney
I made the conscious decision NOT to be an atheist - for the same reason
I am not a theist - because there is NO proven truth about gods - either
way. So - I chose the only position where truth is on my side - a Huxley
agnostic only accepts what is proven to be true about supernatural gods.
SO - I will always have proven truth on my side.
And since no gods are proven so far - there are NONE to hate or reject.
>
> No, you're not. You're a child of the Devil uttering a pack of lies
> against God.
Again - you have yet to provide a single piece of proven information
that I am lying about - so YOU are the liar here.
And quoting scripture = which remains BELIEF - not proven truth -
changes nothing. Since I have pointed that out in the past- your
delusion is evidently proven
>
> Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love
> me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself,
> but he sent me.
> Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot
> hear my word.
> Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
> father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not
> in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a
> lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
> Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Sorry - but similar statements can be found in the scripture of other
religions - as well as contradictory statements
For example
Lets use your bible -
John says in two places -= NO man has seen god.
John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12
Both statements are CLEAR and Unequivocal. Since YOU claim your religion
only has one god - and that JOHN was an apostle who would have seen the
christ - then the christ is not a GOD.
OF course - Exodus 33:20 says God said to Moses: �You cannot see My
face; for no man can see Me - another supporting statement to
contradict yours as well from your bible
Then the Quran - which is scripture that YOU have not established to be
any less provable than yours - says
1 - THe christ is NOT a god
2 - THe christ is NOT the son of a god
3 - THe christ did not die on a cross
4 - The bible has been damaged over the years and is no longer viable.
(Note - there is NOTHING in the bible that states the quran - by name -
is wrong about that)
And the bible even agrees with that one - as the christ apparently does
too!!!
John 5:31
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Jeremiah 8:8
'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when
actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
Now - again - you make claims but never support them with testable and
verifiable proof - so answer the following
Provide a list of all of the things YOU can PROVE in a testable and
verifiable manner to all regardless of their prior beliefs - about your
supernatural gods- along with the proof.
I will not accept scripture unless it is agreed upon as proven by ALL
religions of the world - that leaves out the bible.
ANd I will accept your evading answering - as you admission that YOU
have nothing proven to offer.
duke
>On 1/30/2010 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:29:15 -0500, Thommadura<tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
>>>> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
>>>> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
>>>> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
>>>> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
>>
>>> THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
>>
>>> I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
>>> they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
>>> supernatural gods - along with the proof
>>
>> I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
>> deliver, I'll deliver.
>You already replied - that YOU have nothing you can prove - you said
>you have evidence - which is NOT PROOF.
Congrats - you're finally figuring it out. So when you can prove you have
thoughts, I'll provide the proof that God exists.
ThomM
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:28:36 -0500, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On 1/30/2010 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
>
> >>>> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
> >>>> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
> >>>> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
> >>>> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
> >>>> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
>
> >>> THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
>
> >>> I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
> >>> they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
> >>> supernatural gods - along with the proof
>
> >> I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
> >> deliver, I'll deliver.
> >You already replied - that YOU have nothing you can prove - you said
> >you have evidence - which is NOT PROOF.
>
> Congrats - you're finally figuring it out.
That YOU have no proof to give - sure - a long time ago
If you had time - you would not miss a minute to provide it to the
world.
YOUR change of subject is typical theist - since the existence of gods
have nothing to do with me having thoughts.
When asked for PROOF of their gods- as my father has often said -
theists do one or more of three things
1 - THey attempt to change the subject (AS YOU DID)
2 - THey attack the questioner (As you did)
3 - THey attack the question
And that is simply an admission that they have NOTHING they can prove
about their supernatural gods.
And I accept your admission again - since you admitted that all you
have is evidence - and presented NONE - months agod. Since Evidence is
NOT proof - you admitted you have no prood already - so I need not
fall for your stall tactic.
ThomM
And I note still NO PROOF of your gods
ANd I accept that as your admission that YOU have none
Thank you
Linda Lee
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:28:36 -0500, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On 1/30/2010 1:44 PM, duke wrote:
>
> >>>> There you go, arguing from ignorance again. (And that I said that
> >>>> before, and also said that you are correct to say you're agnostic
> >>>> because you are without knowledge, is the reason you're saying this.)
> >>>> Perhaps you would understand if I followed your every post for the
> >>>> next four years with lying name-calling diatribes against you.
>
> >>> THere YOU go - there is NOTHING to be ignorant of
>
> >>> I have asked repeatedly for theists to provide a list of EVERYTHING that
> >>> they can PROVE in a testable and verifiable manner about their
> >>> supernatural gods - along with the proof
>
> >> I've asked you for only one thing - proof that you have thoughts. When you
> >> deliver, I'll deliver.
> >You already replied - that YOU have nothing you can prove - you said
> >you have evidence - which is NOT PROOF.
>
> Congrats - you're finally figuring it out. So when you can prove you have
> thoughts, I'll provide the proof that God exists.
He would have gotten his "proof" years ago if he had ever loved God.
The Scriptures show the onus is on him, not on believers. He'd know
that if he'd ever really read the Scriptures as he claims.
Linda Lee
You're delusional. I've been given proof enough for me.
You are so far gone that I don't think you could even think of a
scenario that would prove to you God's existence. What would do it for
you? What if you were in severe pain and called to God for help and
your pain stopped instantaneously? Coincidence. What is you were
deathly ill and asked for healing and got it? Spontaneous remission or
wrong diagnosis. What if you had a near-death experience of heaven or
hell. The result of almost-dying brain cells. If God himself appeared
to you, you'd simply think you were insane and/or hallucinating or
someone had played a trick on you, or perhaps a hologram.
Sorry Thommadura, scoffers like you won't get the proof you demand
until Judgment Day. I can assure you that it is different for those
who love God, as The Messiah promised, he manifests himself (in
various ways) to those who love him.
John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and
I will love him, and will manifest myself to him".
The Doctor
Thom Madura represents the Death of Common sense
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
London Times Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense
'Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets theworm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend morethan you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are incharge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Elastoplast to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Born 29 Jan 1969 Redhill,Surrey,England UK
π¶۞ Peter
> On Jan 29, 7:50 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 1/29/2010 2:36 PM,LindaLeewrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 9:36 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> <snip the opinions argued from ignorance of the admitted
>>> "agnostic" (i.e. without knowledge)>
>> WHich makes us equals - since YOU have no proven knowledge about a god
>> either
>>
>> And your snipping is only proof IKE is correct about you- being dishonest
>
>
>
> dishonest as well? You're being hypocritical.
>
> The following is from your post at
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.theology/msg/f2abf484fee704ef
> where you snipped my "quotes" claiming they did not support my
> statement, when they did support it, so I've restored some of what you
> snipped at the bottom of this post.
>
> You:
>>>> since the
>>>> jews would not have recognized the messiah as a god
> Me:
>>> That is false. Many of the ancient Israelites expected God Himself to
>>> come as their Messiah, King, and Saviour. In the days of the Messiah,
>>> these would become his multitudes of disciples, and many would be
>>> killed; first by the disbelieving Israelites/Jews (including Saul/
>>> Paul), and then by the Romans.
> You:
>> That is FALSE
>>
>> ANd your quotes do not support your statement - so I snipped them
>
>
> You lie.
Of course he lies! That is what a liar does! He is an enemy of God,
do you expect them to acknowledge truth ? It means their destruction
and they know it better than you.
They are not worth your time.
Thommadura
> On Jan 31, 3:04 pm, ThomM<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 11:59 am,LindaLee<lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 10:54 am, Thommadura<tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...nothing that interests me. I'm not reading your crap. Go on your
>>> way towards the wide gate.
>>
>> And I note still NO PROOF of your gods
>> ANd I accept that as your admission that YOU have none
>>
>> Thank you
>
>
> You're delusional. I've been given proof enough for me.
Still no PROOF - that is testable and verifiable by all - regardless of
their prior beliefs -
You don't have to convince me - convince all the Muslims of the world -
all the Hindis of the world - ie - the majority of the world who do not
accept your god.
And since YOU posted no such proof - I will accept that you have NONE.
Don't feel so bad - no theist has ever had any as well!
Snow
Linda Lee
And since you posted no answer to my question (entire reply re-posted
below) of what proof would convince you that God exists, I will accept
that NO PROOF would be good enough for you, so go on your scoffing
atheist way.
You're delusional. I've been given proof enough for me.
You are so far gone that I don't think you could even think of a