So Called Christians
Great Sage Itchy
If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
Christian.
The beautiful and musically talented "SideProjectMeg" from YouTube
posted this vid recorded in Indianapolis where her band was touring.
SideProjectMeg:
"Our band was in Indianapolis for a party and we ran into these people.
I couldn't get over the message of hatred they were spreading. It was
on my mind for weeks after the trip so I made this video. It is not to
say I'm right your wrong, whatever, this is purely a message of peace.
PEACE TO ALL!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Sw4OqKvmY
Here is SideProjectMeg singing an original song:
Thommadura
> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> Christian.
Really - then why the Crusades then?
Obviously the church hated something there!
Why all of the genocide in the bible? - obviously the Father hated
somebody there.
And - since when are YOU appointed to make any determinations like that
to begin with?
duke
<it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>Christian.
Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
guardian Snow
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>
> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
> >If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >Christian.
>
> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
Mat 12:37 “For by your words you shall be declared righteous, and by
your words you shall be declared unrighteous.”
Isa 48:17 Thus said יהוה, your Redeemer, the Set-apart One of
Yisra’ĕl, “I am יהוה your Elohim, teaching you what is best, leading
you by the way you should go.
Isa 48:18 “If only you had listened to My commands! Then your peace
would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of
the sea.
Isa 48:19 “And your seed would have been like the sand, and the
offspring of your inward parts like the grains of sand. His name would
not have been cut off nor destroyed from before Me.
Isa 48:20 “Come out of Baḇel! Flee from the Chaldeans! Declare this
with a voice of singing, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the
earth! Say, ‘יהוה has redeemed His servant Yaʽaqoḇ!’ ”
Isa 48:21 And they did not thirst when He led them through the
deserts; He caused waters from a rock to flow for them; He split the
rock, and waters gushed out.
Isa 48:22 “There is no peace for the wrong,” said יהוה.”
walksalone
news:700e892c-15e5-4683...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>
>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>> >If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >Christian.
>>
>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:1
> 5.
>
> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
Repent? One would have to pent first. Which can lead to confusion.
After all that particular word means to confine with a synonym of shut
up. Probably within a sheep fold of Innana, considering the time era you
are trying to use the word from. Of course, that leads to the question,
who opened the gate to start with.
& debtors, you mean to tell me you don't want the money people owe you?
I don't believe you. But then you say many things I do not believe
because, he always managed to elude providing evidence to support
position. But then, you're just another rabbit salad bar xian who's on
Usenet for his self-glorification, a dime a million.
Snip selective quote mining used as an attempt to justify a position that
is not justifiable. According to the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek
testaments, which of course are by unknown authors. Become an alley that
the Hebrew Bible.
As an example of your rabbit salad bar xianity, you know, what follows.
Your continued avoidance of establishing the facts of a claim. A claim
have made where concepts are personified and accepted as real by you.
From: guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.messianic.
yeshua,alt.bible,alt.messianic
Subject: The battle of Good and Evil
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <829f0745-9db9-4340-a809-
874e7f...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> Were you going to comment and decided not too?
Neither, but that does not concern you. What does concern the
audience is your posturing & speaking of things you are glaringly
ignorant of.
To wit: the title of this thread you introduced & crossposted in
order to impress yourself.
There is no battle between good & evil, just people like you
pretending there is.
Good: an artificial concept used to describe things we want to do,
or have done to us. In nature, which we are part of, there is no
collective concious concept of good.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Evil: Another artificial concept used to describe things we don't
want, or don't want done to ourselves.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Collectively, used to mold peoples mental patterns in an effort to
control them. Both politicians & high & low priests use the terms
interchangably.
The concepts are useful when used as something other than boogey men.
Good, that which befefits a society, or gene pool, preferrably
without harming others.
Bad, that which harms a society or gene pool by causeing harm to
others, or a gene pool.
Now, you can play with those observations, you can play with the
dictionary & claim they are wrong. Or you can show them to be wrong
& you to be right. Care to play?
Hint, I will cram your attempts to divert & sidetrack by employing
scripture as an authority right back down your throat.
After all, what makes yolu think that if the Hebrew Bible & Greek
testments have historical errors, & they do, they don't have
mythological claims for the truth wrong as well.
No, that is not a threat, I don't bother with them. It is a fact.
Your only choice, should you elect to play BMOC, is to address the
concepts & falsify them.
walksalone has no doubt the snow will always fail to stand up and be a
man by supporting his position, but he has a built-in excuse. He's a
xian, and that's not a requirement for him. All he needs to do is play
the fool publicly, and, for that he will be permitted to kiss the gods
ass [see Revelation and draw your own conclusion] for eternity. It's a
dirty job, but he's qualified. What he thinks he is.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast
ignorance in a Christian and
laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> Christian.
Incorrect.
A Christian who is not keeping Jesus' commandments is simply a wayward
one.
A Christian who is keeping all of Jesus' commandments by being mindful
of WDJW is one of His disciples, who are those who are attending His
church that He has built according to what is written in Matthew
16:18...
True Christians are distinguished from false ones like Vera by their
ability to publicly say "Jesus is LORD:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
Dear GSI, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ...
... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !"
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/980b41e6999de315?
Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de?
Thommadura
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> Christian.
>
> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
Wrong - only theists are sinners - people who don't believe in the
nonsense of religion are free to eat meat on Fridays in Lent whenever
they want to.
And quoiting your belief book is worthless - since there are Thousands
of them from hundreds of thousands of religions - and none are proven true.
Thommadura
> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>
>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>> Christian.
>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>
> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>
ROFL
IF they repent - that means they repent their sins to your imaginary
gods. So - in order to repent - you would need to sin.
However - non-thiests do not need to repent - because they never commit
sins. There are no proven gods to commit sins against. SO - we are free
to eat meat in Fridays in lent whenever we want.
duke
wrote:
>On May 30, 10:41�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>
>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>> >If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >Christian.
>>
>> Wrong. �All people, including Christians, are sinners. �Heb 4:15.
>
>Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. Man sins day in
and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
do. So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
>Mat 12:37 �For by your words you shall be declared righteous, and by
>your words you shall be declared unrighteous.�
>Isa 48:17 Thus said ????, your Redeemer, the Set-apart One of
>Yisra�?l, �I am ???? your Elohim, teaching you what is best, leading
>you by the way you should go.
>Isa 48:18 �If only you had listened to My commands! Then your peace
>would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of
>the sea.
>Isa 48:19 �And your seed would have been like the sand, and the
>offspring of your inward parts like the grains of sand. His name would
>not have been cut off nor destroyed from before Me.
>Isa 48:20 �Come out of Bab?el! Flee from the Chaldeans! Declare this
>with a voice of singing, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the
>earth! Say, �???? has redeemed His servant Ya?aqob?!� �
>Isa 48:21 And they did not thirst when He led them through the
>deserts; He caused waters from a rock to flow for them; He split the
>rock, and waters gushed out.
>Isa 48:22 �There is no peace for the wrong,� said ????.�
Thommadura
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>>
>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>> Christian.
>>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>
> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. Man sins day in
> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
> do. So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
>
Sorry - only theists sin
Since no gods are proven to exist - those who do not believe cannot sin
against something that even YOU cannot prove exists.
And it is by the grace of humanity that we who do not believe are saved
from the sutpidity of religion.
Great Sage Itchy
<0d733a94-eaf7-40a0...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote:
> Great Sage Itchy wrote:
> >
> > If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> > Christian.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> A Christian who is not keeping Jesus' commandments is simply a wayward
> one.
>
> A Christian who is keeping all of Jesus' commandments by being mindful
> of WDJW is one of His disciples, who are those who are attending His
> church that He has built according to what is written in Matthew
> 16:18...
>
> http://WDJW.net
>
> True Christians are distinguished from false ones like Vera by their
> ability to publicly say "Jesus is LORD:"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
>
> Dear GSI, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
The name is "Great Sage Itchy, Greater than Heaven and God Combined" to
you, my dear Mr. Chung.
And as to your question, "can you publicly say Jesus is LORD", I will
answer just as I have over and over, by saying that everyone is LORD.
Everyone has the same origin. All created things have the same origin.
Why do you ask this question? I have seen you ask this asshole question
of many others here. Yes, you heard me right, "asshole question"!
Asshole is a street term for EGOIST. That is what I think this question
is. That is what I think YOU are. What do you seek to accomplish by
asking this question? To divide the world into the "right" people and
the "wrong" people, "true" Christians and "false" ones. In other words,
to do what ALL ASSHOLES and HATERS do. That is what you are. There is
NOTHING spiritual about you.
You are headed in the right direction, however. One should always
strive to be the biggest and best. So continue your path to becoming
the biggest asshole in the world. You are already the biggest asshole
in UseNet, so keep up the good work!.
Everything at the extreme changes to its opposite. So when you reach
"biggest asshole in the world", for sure you will soon become a saint.
That will be good for planet Earth, because when you become a saint,
you will no longer ask asshole questions.
> Love in the truth,
The above true loving words by His Holiness, the Prophet Great Sage
Itchy.
> Andrew <><
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > GSI wrote:
> > >
> > > If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> > > Christian.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> > A Christian who is not keeping Jesus' commandments is simply a wayward
> > one.
> >
> > A Christian who is keeping all of Jesus' commandments by being mindful
> > of WDJW is one of His disciples, who are those who are attending His
> > church that He has built according to what is written in Matthew
> > 16:18...
> >
> > http://WDJW.net
> >
> > True Christians are distinguished from false ones like Vera by their
> > ability to publicly say "Jesus is LORD:"
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
> >
> > Dear GSI, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>
> The name is "Great Sage Itchy, Greater than Heaven and God Combined" to
> you, my dear Mr. Chung.
>
> And as to your question, "can you publicly say Jesus is LORD", I will
> answer just as I have over and over, by saying that everyone is LORD.
> Everyone has the same origin. All created things have the same origin.
Sad to note that you were unable to answer the above simple yes/no
question with an affirmative.
May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
tr...@finder.com
Using the below exchange, you take the measure of what it contains based
on His words and what scripture says:
> Dr. Chung do you sin?
"No."
> Please provide examples of how often
"Zero."
> and of what kind?
"None."
The word of the Lord in measure of the above:
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our
sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in
us.
My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin;
but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for
ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Great Sage Itchy
<15cbcca4-5051-4c1e...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote:
As I expected, you continue with your creepy egoistic bullshit. Stay
away from my posts in the future.
> May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
My words ARE the word of GOD, asshole. But they could NEVER be hard
enough to even scratch that diamond-hard ego of yours, you piece of
shit. And now your shit has attracted the the scum of Usenet to this
thread, you LORD of the ASSHOLES.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains the personal choice of this disciple of Jesus to die to
self daily. Where there is no self, there is no ego.
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>>>
>>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>> Christian.
>>>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>>
>> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. Man sins day in
>> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
>> do. So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
>Sorry - only theists sin
Sorry, all fall short of the glory of God. We try to do better and you atheists
don't.
>Since no gods are proven to exist - those who do not believe cannot sin
>against something that even YOU cannot prove exists.
God's creation is called to one standard. There are those that try and those
that don't care.
>And it is by the grace of humanity that we who do not believe are saved
>from the sutpidity of religion.
Remember, the flames only last for an eternity, no longer.
Great Sage Itchy
Chung, MD/PhD <disc...@T3WiJ.com> wrote:
> >As I expected, you continue with your creepy egoistic bullshit.
>
> It remains the personal choice of this disciple of Jesus to die to
> self daily. Where there is no self, there is no ego.
The way I see it, you're nothing BUT ego.
> Truth is simple.
Another asshole statement from the Lord of the Assholes. All the phony
religious assholes in UseNet say the same thing to make them sound
"wise" and "spiritual". Asshole Creeps.
> May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
FUCK the Jehovas Witless Zombie Cult and all it's creep followers.
FUCK the GOD they worship. FUCK the JESUS they worship.
Nothing will soften my heart when a supreme asshole/creep like you
shits on my post with his phony lying religious bullshit.
Stop posting your bullshit to ABProphecy. Otherwise I will take up
residence at christnet.christianlife and REALLY get nasty.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Great Sage Itchy
Chung, MD/PhD <disc...@T3WiJ.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1f6680ac6aa285d0?
>
> Truth is simple.
>
> May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
PHONY ASSHOLE
Ted L
wrote:
> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> Christian.
Love babies? You must hate abortion.
Love Jesus? You must hate your sin that caused him to have to be
nailed to a cross.
Love the Holy Spirit? You must despise your flesh.
Such churlishness there not-so-great.
roy...@gmail.com
> On May 29, 3:10 pm, Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> > Christian.
>
> Love babies? You must hate abortion.
>
> Love Jesus? You must hate your sin that caused him to have to be
> nailed to a cross.
>
> Love the Holy Spirit? You must despise your flesh.
What's meant by "flesh", here ?
Is it something like "... motions of sins ... " (Rom 7:5) ? or the
carcase we inhabit e.g. " ... to deliver such an one unto Satan for
the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus" (1Cor 5:5) ?
>
> Such churlishness there not-so-great.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
::: Jesus is LORD :::
news:8d3fa14f-6421-4889...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
roy...@gmail.com <roy...@gmail.com> typed:
You do not get it, huh? Start with Genesis...
>> Such churlishness there not-so-great.
roy...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Innews:8d3fa14f-6421-4889...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
> roym...@gmail.com <roym...@gmail.com> typed:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:30 am, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 29, 3:10 pm, Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >>> Christian.
>
> >> Love babies? You must hate abortion.
>
> >> Love Jesus? You must hate your sin that caused him to have to be
> >> nailed to a cross.
>
> >> Love the Holy Spirit? You must despise your flesh.
>
> > What's meant by "flesh", here ?
>
> > Is it something like "... motions of sins ... " (Rom 7:5) ? or the
> > carcase we inhabit e.g. " ... to deliver such an one unto Satan for
> > the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
> > of the Lord Jesus" (1Cor 5:5) ?
>
> You do not get it, huh? Start with Genesis...
I take it that it's sin that's in view, then.
>
> >> Such churlishness there not-so-great.
ThomM
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>
> >>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
> >>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >>>>> Christian.
> >>>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
> >>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>
> >> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. Man sins day in
> >> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
> >> do. So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
> >Sorry - only theists sin
>
> Sorry, all fall short of the glory of God. We try to do better and you atheists
> don't.
Sorry - but you are wrong twice
1 - Non-believers are just as - if not more ethical and moral as
theists - are more intelligent and commit less crime - murder less -
divorce less - and commit suicide less than theists.
The crime rates in countries with the highest levels of non-belief -
Japan - Sweden - Denmark - are less than half those of countries with
the highest levels of christians.
In the USA - federal prison statistics show that non-believers
reprsent less than 1% of the prison population - to over 8% of the
actual population. Catholics and Baptists are the highest in prison.
You may TRY to do better - but NON-believers actually DO - do better.
2 - My father and I are still Huxley agnostics who accept only what is
proven about gods and religions - and gods have NO glory - because
none can be proven to exist.
Non-believers do not sin - because they have already been saved from
religion. Only theists worry about that nonsense.
Randy �
Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>Christian.
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
everything in the world�the cravings of sinful man, the lust
of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
from the Father but from the world. (1 John 2:15-16)
(Psalms 5:5) The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you
hate all who do wrong.
(Psalms 31:6) I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I
trust in the LORD.
(Psalms 36:2) For in his own eyes he flatters himself too
much to detect or hate his sin.
(Psalms 45:7) You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by
anointing you with the oil of joy.
(Psalms 97:10) Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he
guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from
the hand of the wicked.
(Psalms 101:3) I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The
deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me.
(Psalms 119:104) I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.
(Psalms 119:113) Samekh. I hate double-minded men, but I love
your law.
(Psalms 119:128) and because I consider all your precepts
right, I hate every wrong path.
(Psalms 119:163) I hate and abhor falsehood but I love your
law.
(Psalms 139:21) Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and
abhor those who rise up against you?
--
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/people/Randy-Faithguard/1088671914
______________________________________________
Bear
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Truth is simple.
May GOD soften your heart, GSI, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Great Sage Itchy
<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >Christian.
>
>
> Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
> loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
> everything in the world�the cravings of sinful man, the lust
> of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
> from the Father but from the world. (1 John 2:15-16)
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly care what you think or believe:
Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father it shall be forgiven
him." Even if you deny GOD you are forgiven. "And whoever
blasphemes against the Son , it shall be forgiven him." You are still
all right. "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven him, either on earth or in Heaven".
> (Psalms 5:5) The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you
> hate all who do wrong.
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly hate or like anyone. These
Psalms are not the words of a prophet or wise man.
Things were very different 2000 yrs. ago. These words may have been
meant for people with little or no education, who would not have
understood the message unless it was a very simple one. It's perfect
for the so-called Christians of this group who live for HATE.
> (Psalms 31:6) I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I
> trust in the LORD.
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly hate or like anyone.
> (Psalms 36:2) For in his own eyes he flatters himself too
> much to detect or hate his sin.
>
> (Psalms 45:7) You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
> therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by
> anointing you with the oil of joy.
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly hate or like anyone.
>
> (Psalms 97:10) Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he
> guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from
> the hand of the wicked.
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly hate or like anyone.
>
> (Psalms 101:3) I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The
> deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me.
God is NOT a person. God cannot possibly hate or like anyone.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <310520092005297582%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
Which "God" are you talking about? The one in the Bible, or
the one you invented?
Thommadura
Which proves the bible to be a bunch of ancient myths - so we can ignore
the rest!
Thommadura
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> Christian.
>
>
> Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
> loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
> of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
The story is a bunch of nonsense
IT still remains that no sane person would prove his love for another by
allowing that other to kill his son. IT is a truly stupid idea
Thommadura
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:05:29 -0700,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> Article <310520092005297582%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>
>> <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700,
>>> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
>>> Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
>>> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
>>> loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
>>> of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
THere is no difference between the one YOU invented - the one they
invented and the one the ancient invented - they remain ALL myth - and
the bible is simply a statement of religion that has no basis in fact or
thruth that anyone can prove about supernatural events.
duke
>On May 31, 6:13�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:05:38 -0400, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >duke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>
>> >>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >>>>> Christian.
>> >>>> Wrong. �All people, including Christians, are sinners. �Heb 4:15.
>> >>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>>
>> >> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. �Man sins day in
>> >> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
>> >> do. �So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
>> >Sorry - only theists sin
>>
>> Sorry, all fall short of the glory of God. �We try to do better and you atheists
>> don't.
>Sorry - but you are wrong twice
>1 - Non-believers are just as - if not more ethical and moral as
>theists - are more intelligent and commit less crime - murder less -
>divorce less - and commit suicide less than theists.
Now that's a joke. Look at all the mass murders on school campuses lately -
Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc - all by atheists.
>2 - My father and I are still Huxley agnostics who accept only what is
>proven about gods and religions - and gods have NO glory - because
>none can be proven to exist.
That just makes you an atheist.
>Non-believers do not sin - because they have already been saved from
>religion. Only theists worry about that nonsense.
Non-beleivers do not sin because they consider murder not to be a sin. Guess
what. Your creator says you're wrong.
ThomM
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On May 31, 6:13 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:05:38 -0400, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >duke wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>
> >> >>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >> >>>>> Christian.
> >> >>>> Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
> >> >>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>
> >> >> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. Man sins day in
> >> >> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
> >> >> do. So it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
> >> >Sorry - only theists sin
>
> >> Sorry, all fall short of the glory of God. We try to do better and you atheists
> >> don't.
> >Sorry - but you are wrong twice
> >1 - Non-believers are just as - if not more ethical and moral as
> >theists - are more intelligent and commit less crime - murder less -
> >divorce less - and commit suicide less than theists.
>
> Now that's a joke.
No - it is real. Theists love to claim moral superiority - but actual
statistics of the United Nations - as well as the Christian Barna
research group and other US federal statistic PROVE otherwise.
Crimes are performed by criminals - and in the USA - that means
christians - in number higher than their percentage of the population
- especially murders and suicides. In countries with the highest
amount of non-belief - Japan - Sweden - Denmark - the crime rates are
less than HALF those of the so called christian countries. In the USA
- the states with the highest levels of fundamental christians
(Louisianna, alabama, texas - and the other bible belt states) have
markedly higher murder rates than the so called liberal states of New
York And Massachusetts
Yet - the number of non-believers in prisons are generally less than
1/10th of their percentage of the general population..
Look at all the mass murders on school campuses lately -
> Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc - all by atheists.
A complete BOLD FACE LIE.
THe columbine murderers were JEWISH
THe Virginia Tech murdrer claimed to BE jesus christ,
YOu didn't even look up the facts.
>
> >2 - My father and I are still Huxley agnostics who accept only what is
> >proven about gods and religions - and gods have NO glory - because
> >none can be proven to exist.
>
> That just makes you an atheist.
No - it does not. Atheist do not believe in gods.
Agnostics believe everything that is proven about gods.
I
They are different positions.
>
> >Non-believers do not sin - because they have already been saved from
> >religion. Only theists worry about that nonsense.
>
> Non-beleivers do not sin because they consider murder not to be a sin.
Of course not - it is a crime - and immoral and unethical - something
we non-believers pride ourselves in.
That is why the majority of murders are performed by christians .
After all - they don't care about it - they are "saved' = so they can
do anything they want!
Guess
> what. Your creator says you're wrong.
My creators were MY parents - and I can prove that one.
ANd YOUR creators were YOUR parents to - provably
ANd no matter what they might have told you - neither of them were
gods.
No - when you have something you can support with facts - by all means
post it
However - OBVIOUSLY you post unsupportable lies all the time.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <4a23c2b4$0$22517$607e...@cv.net>,
Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Randy � wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:05:29 -0700,
>> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
>> Article <310520092005297582%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
>> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <ona625dv341gd2pko...@4ax.com>, Randy �
>>> <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700,
>>>> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
>>>> Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
>>>> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>> Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
>>>> loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
>>>> everything in the world�the cravings of sinful man, the lust
>>>> of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
Why waste your time attacking something you claim you don't
even believe in, hypocrite? Do you spend all day trying to
convince children there is no Santa Clause?
--
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/people/Randy-Faithguard/1088671914
______________________________________________
Randy �
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:56:44 -0400,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <4a23c243$0$22528$607e...@cv.net>,
Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Randy � wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700,
>> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
>> Article <290520091310458132%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
>> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>> Christian.
>>
>>
>> Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
>> loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For
>> everything in the world�the cravings of sinful man, the lust
>> of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does�comes not
Why do you have to keep reassuring people you don't believe in
God? Is your conscience still bothering you?
--
ThomM
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:58:37 -0400,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Randy ® wrote:
> >> On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:05:29 -0700,
> >> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> >> Article <310520092005297582%it...@itchyandscratchy.com>,
> >> Great Sage Itchy <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
It is not something I don't believe in - it is something that has no
basis in truth or facts.
I am not a hyprocrite - proselytizing is something stupid theists do
to non-believers every day (or more often). If it is ok for them to
spread lies - it surely is OK for me to spread the truth.
Do you spend all day trying to
> convince children there is no Santa Clause?
>
Children grow out of Santa Claus Belief eventually -
Apparently the god delusion is more deep seeded in some.
ThomM
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:56:44 -0400,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Why do christians find it necessary to constantly spread their lies
and attack people when they have NOTHING provable to say?
I am already saved - from religion - and Shouldn't everyone be the
same?
ThomM
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Why do christians and other theists keep saying things that cannot be
proven to be true - like you nonsense about the christ having died to
save us. IT is ad infinitum - constant nosnense - unprovable lies -
and attacking people who don't believe the stupidity exactly the way
YOU do!
My conscience is not bothering me - and if you are bothered with
people actually spreading the TRUTH instead of lies - maybe you need a
conscience!
Theists have proselytized about their spooks for centuries - and
continue to be the obnoxious idiots to this day - even when their
beliefs have no basis in fact or truth.
YOu seem intent on spreading your nonsense here and there as well. And
it is YOU who LIE when you claim it is truth - since it cannot be
established to be truth. It is belief alone - and I have just as much
right to proselytize for the truth.
I
Great Sage Itchy
<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which "God" are you talking about? The one in the Bible, or
> the one you invented?
I'm talking about the same God Jesus talked about, and the one I have
seen with my own eyes:
Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father it shall be forgiven
him." Even if you deny GOD you are forgiven. "And whoever
blasphemes against the Son , it shall be forgiven him." You are still
all right. "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven him, either on earth or in Heaven".
That God is NOT a person. That God cannot possibly care what you think
or believe. It is YOUR God that is the fantasy. YOUR god- the God of
the EGOISTS. The God of the LOSERS. The God of the WEAK and STUPID.
THE GOD OF THE ASSHOLES.
duke
>On Jun 1, 8:22嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >On May 31, 6:13嚙緘m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:05:38 -0400, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> >duke wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>
>> >> >>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >> >>>>> Christian.
>> >> >>>> Wrong. 嚙璀ll people, including Christians, are sinners. 嚙瘡eb 4:15.
>> >> >>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>>
>> >> >> That's correct, but only Christ ever met that criteria fully. 嚙瞎an sins day in
>> >> >> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
>> >> >> do. 嚙磅o it is only by the grace of God that we are saved.
>> >> >Sorry - only theists sin
>>
>> >> Sorry, all fall short of the glory of God. 嚙磕e try to do better and you atheists
>> >> don't.
>> >Sorry - but you are wrong twice
>> >1 - Non-believers are just as - if not more ethical and moral as
>> >theists - are more intelligent and commit less crime - murder less -
>> >divorce less - and commit suicide less than theists.
>>
>> Now that's a joke.
>
>No - it is real. Theists love to claim moral superiority - but actual
>statistics of the United Nations - as well as the Christian Barna
>research group and other US federal statistic PROVE otherwise.
1. Theists work at being morally superior. God calls for all of us to clean
up our acts and love one another as he has loved us.
2. What proof?
>Crimes are performed by criminals - and in the USA - that means
>christians
No. That means atheist who checked the "Christian" box.
> - in number higher than their percentage of the population
>- especially murders and suicides. In countries with the highest
>amount of non-belief - Japan - Sweden - Denmark - the crime rates are
>less than HALF those of the so called christian countries. In the USA
>- the states with the highest levels of fundamental christians
>(Louisianna, alabama, texas - and the other bible belt states) have
>markedly higher murder rates than the so called liberal states of New
>York And Massachusetts
Recognizing the word doesn't a Christian make.
>Yet - the number of non-believers in prisons are generally less than
>1/10th of their percentage of the general population..
Sorry, bub, but your saying it does not make it truth.
> Look at all the mass murders on school campuses lately -
>> Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc - all by atheists.
>A complete BOLD FACE LIE.
>THe columbine murderers were JEWISH
Not a chance. Klebold was a Luthern whose great, great grandfather was Jewish,
and they called themselves the trenchcoat mafia.
>THe Virginia Tech murdrer claimed to BE jesus christ,
Meaning he could ONLY be an atheist.
>YOu didn't even look up the facts.
Gotcha.
>> >2 - My father and I are still Huxley agnostics who accept only what is
>> >proven about gods and religions - and gods have NO glory - because
>> >none can be proven to exist.
>> That just makes you an atheist.
>No - it does not. Atheist do not believe in gods.
Atheists deny/reject the existence of God.
>Agnostics believe everything that is proven about gods.
>They are different positions.
>> >Non-believers do not sin - because they have already been saved from
>> >religion. Only theists worry about that nonsense.
>> Non-beleivers do not sin because they consider murder not to be a sin.
>Of course not - it is a crime - and immoral and unethical - something
>we non-believers pride ourselves in.
>That is why the majority of murders are performed by christians .
Can't be for the same reasoning. A Christian is called to love one another as
God loves us, and hence cannot murder.
>After all - they don't care about it - they are "saved' = so they can
>do anything they want!
A very ignorant statement from an ignorant atheist.
>>嚙瘦uess
>> what. 嚙磐our creator says you're wrong.
>My creators were MY parents - and I can prove that one.
>ANd YOUR creators were YOUR parents to - provably
Your parents only mixed the chemical already pre located 50% in male and 50% in
female, and brought together is a sexual act of intense pleasure. ONly God can
make those arrangements.
>ANd no matter what they might have told you - neither of them were
>gods.
>No - when you have something you can support with facts - by all means
>post it
>However - OBVIOUSLY you post unsupportable lies all the time.
You atheists just don't get it.
Thommadura
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:55:18 -0700 (PDT), ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 6:13 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:05:38 -0400, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 30, 10:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>>>>>>>> <it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>> Not if they repent, turn to YAHWEH and forgive their debtors.
>>>>>>> and day out, in our words and in our thoughts, in what we do and what we don't
>>>>>> Sorry - only theists sin
>>>>> don't.
>>>> Sorry - but you are wrong twice
>>>> 1 - Non-believers are just as - if not more ethical and moral as
>>>> theists - are more intelligent and commit less crime - murder less -
>>>> divorce less - and commit suicide less than theists.
>>> Now that's a joke.
>> No - it is real. Theists love to claim moral superiority - but actual
>> statistics of the United Nations - as well as the Christian Barna
>> research group and other US federal statistic PROVE otherwise.
>
> 1. Theists work at being morally superior. God calls for all of us to clean
> up our acts and love one another as he has loved us.
TOO bad that they don't do it in real life
>
> 2. What proof?
Like I said - you have stated something for which YOU have not proof
>
>> Crimes are performed by criminals - and in the USA - that means
>> christians
>
> No. That means atheist who checked the "Christian" box.
No - just for your information - atheists are those who do not believe
in gods - and the christian box is for the deluded people who do.
>
>> - in number higher than their percentage of the population
>> - especially murders and suicides. In countries with the highest
>> amount of non-belief - Japan - Sweden - Denmark - the crime rates are
>> less than HALF those of the so called christian countries. In the USA
>> - the states with the highest levels of fundamental christians
>> (Louisianna, alabama, texas - and the other bible belt states) have
>> markedly higher murder rates than the so called liberal states of New
>> York And Massachusetts
>
> Recognizing the word doesn't a Christian make.
Nor does it make then atheists either.
>
>> Yet - the number of non-believers in prisons are generally less than
>> 1/10th of their percentage of the general population..
>
> Sorry, bub, but your saying it does not make it truth.
But Federal prison statistics do
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
>
>> Look at all the mass murders on school campuses lately -
>>> Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc - all by atheists.
>
>> A complete BOLD FACE LIE.
>> THe columbine murderers were JEWISH
>
> Not a chance. Klebold was a Luthern whose great, great grandfather was Jewish,
> and they called themselves the trenchcoat mafia.
>
>> THe Virginia Tech murdrer claimed to BE jesus christ,
>
> Meaning he could ONLY be an atheist.
Sorry - but he could NOT be an atheist - since atheists do not believe
in gods - which would mean he would deny himslef -
>
>> YOu didn't even look up the facts.
>
> Gotcha.
At least YOU admit it
>
>>>> 2 - My father and I are still Huxley agnostics who accept only what is
>>>> proven about gods and religions - and gods have NO glory - because
>>>> none can be proven to exist.
>
>>> That just makes you an atheist.
>
>> No - it does not. Atheist do not believe in gods.
>
> Atheists deny/reject the existence of God.
Indeed - and I simply said that they are m not proven to exist.
>
>> Agnostics believe everything that is proven about gods.
>> They are different positions.
>
>>>> Non-believers do not sin - because they have already been saved from
>>>> religion. Only theists worry about that nonsense.
>
>>> Non-beleivers do not sin because they consider murder not to be a sin.
>
>> Of course not - it is a crime - and immoral and unethical - something
>> we non-believers pride ourselves in.
>
>> That is why the majority of murders are performed by christians .
>
> Can't be for the same reasoning. A Christian is called to love one another as
> God loves us, and hence cannot murder.
THey why are most murders christians then?
>
>> After all - they don't care about it - they are "saved' = so they can
>> do anything they want!
>
> A very ignorant statement from an ignorant atheist.
Obviously - you are the ignorant one - I am an agnostic - as is my son
>
>>> Guess
>>> what. Your creator says you're wrong.
>
>> My creators were MY parents - and I can prove that one.
>> ANd YOUR creators were YOUR parents to - provably
>
> Your parents only mixed the chemical already pre located 50% in male and 50% in
> female, and brought together is a sexual act of intense pleasure. ONly God can
> make those arrangements.
Sorry - but animals can do that fine without the need for gods
-including humans
Your delusion has no basis in fact that you can establish
>
>> ANd no matter what they might have told you - neither of them were
>> gods.
>
>> No - when you have something you can support with facts - by all means
>> post it
>> However - OBVIOUSLY you post unsupportable lies all the time.
>
> You atheists just don't get it.
Still not an atheist - and we do get it
REligion creates a malady that only religion can save you from if you
believe it.
All you need do is eliminate religion - and the malady goes away.
Draw nigh unto religion - and they will take you for everything you have
- including your intelligence.
That is why non-believers also have higher IQs than theists do as well.
ThomM
> >However - OBVIOUSLY you post unsupportable lies all the time.
>
> You atheists just don't get it.
Actually - we Non -believers do get it - and you deluded theists do
not.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
That is a link to a study done by a the Journal of Religion and
Society
In their study - they found(to their surprise) - as My father and I
have noted - that there is no connection between religion and moral
and ethical behavior. THeir study showed that homicide and suicide
rates are higher among the religious - and lowest among those who do
not believe - around the world. Among them "Life spans tend to
decrease as rates of religiosity rise " - and "In all SECULAR
developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide
rates drop to historical lows. "In general, higher rates of belief in
and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide,
juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen
pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
"No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular
denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates
of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with
lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually
the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-
evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable
dysfunction."
The studies used and the conclusions are there for you to see.
IN general - they contradict your claims about theistic morality. It
is the secular non theist who have the lower crime - murder - suicide
- STD infection - teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
So- in fact - we do understand - when YOU make your claims - you have
NOTHING to support them in reality because they are wrong.
The non-believers morality stems from the reality that this is OUR
world - and it is our responsibility to make things right while we are
alive - because that is all there is. OUR morality stems from it being
the CORRECT thing to do(which shoudl be the only reason neeed) - not
because some preachers promises 72 virgins or some other type of after
life.
I and my father remain huxley agnostics - accepting everything you can
actually PROVE about your gods and your religious claims. THat YOU
cannot prove ANY of it to be true speaks volumes as to who is right
about it. If a god were almighty and everywhere - he would be HERE
and speaking for himself. That he apparently needs con men like Jim
Jones - Jim and Tammy Baker - Jimmy Swaggart - Al Sharpton - and all
those ministers and priests who were convicted of child molestation to
spread his "message" is a clear indication that no god actually exists
in the manner YOU say.
At least in our generation - most non-believers were once theists who
found that their beliefs were morally bankrupt. ANd make no mistake -
it is morally bankrupt to promise something post-mortem - in return
for what you do in reality.
"It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something
now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their
reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."
-Gloria Steinam, women's rights activist
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Ted L
duke
>> >However - OBVIOUSLY you post unsupportable lies all the time.
>> You atheists just don't get it.
>Actually - we Non -believers do get it - and you deluded theists do
>not.
>http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
>That is a link to a study done by a the Journal of Religion and
>Society
>In their study - they found(to their surprise) - as My father and I
>have noted - that there is no connection between religion and moral
>and ethical behavior.
So, what's your point, gloria?
All mankind is a sinner, and we are called to overcome the shortfall.
>-Gloria Steinam, women's rights activist
The Dukester, American-American
roy...@gmail.com
I was pointed to Genesis for directions in this regard and surmised,
then, that sin was in view.
This seems to different to the use of 'flesh' in Galatians which
refers to the body we inhabit. So, by "you must despise your flesh" I
take it that our gratifying our bodies stands in the way of our loving
the Holy Spirit.
This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
I
> This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
> Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
A good question.
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
The Greatest Commandment is aimed at God the Father and not Jesus or the
Holy Spirit.
Throughout the bible the Holy Spirit is something whose presence is felt and
who inspires but is not the object of adoration.
roy...@gmail.com
Aye. AFAIK the Holy Spirit is not the object of adoration either.
Aaron
>On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
><it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>Christian.
>
>Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
"anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
without hating people.
By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin. The Bible
lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
without sin. People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
others to do evil also. The myth that all people must sin has lead
many people into sin. There are entire chruches and denominations
that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
>
>
>The Dukester, American-American
>*****
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> duke wrote:
> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
> >
> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >> Christian.
> >
> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>
> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
> without hating people.
Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
Biblical commandment is being broken.
> By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
> sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin.
"For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but we have One Who has been tempted in every way, just as
we are—yet was without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
Amen.
Yes, our High Priest did not ever think that whatever He wanted was
something He needed. GOD has no needs afterall ! ! !
May GOD keep us from ever thinking our wants are needs thereby keeping
us from temptation though we will be tempted by the prince of this
world via his lies especially the ancient "hunger is starvation" lie
(Genesis 25:32) that when in our hearts would cause us to fall into
the temptation that leads us into committing the sin of gluttony,
which is eating more than we need to kill the hunger.
> The Bible
> lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
> Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
> Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
> without sin.
"... with GOD all things are possible." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew
19:26)
Amen.
"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." -- LORD Jesus Christ
(Matthew 11:30)
Amen.
It is when we are mindful of WDJW that we can receive the guidance of
the Holy Spirit in order to stop sinning:
"Be perfect for your Father in heaven is perfect." -- LORD Jesus
Christ
Amen.
"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." -- LORD Jesus
Christ
Amen.
> People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
> others to do evil also.
It is written that that the heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9).
This has happened when the mind has not guarded the heart keeping it
from being polluted by the world.
> The myth that all people must sin has lead
> many people into sin.
Correct.
With GOD, we can and should stop sinning.
Indeed, whenever we sin, we stray from GOD.
> There are entire chruches and denominations
> that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
> which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
Indeed, we have a timely example (aka holy...@wondering.com) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/92f20145be02b83f?
Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Ted L
> On Jun 3, 3:03 am, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 7:41 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > What's meant by "flesh", here ?
>
> > See Galatians 5:17-25
> This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
> Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
From you, perhaps, there'll be no love lost when Genesis 6:3 becomes
your eternal reality, except ye repent.
roy...@gmail.com
> On Jun 2, 4:40 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 3:03 am, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 7:41 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > What's meant by "flesh", here ?
>
> > > See Galatians 5:17-25
I'm assuming, here, that our bodies is in view that should be despised
and perhaps pursue a life toward asceticism lest we compromise loving
the Holy Spirit.
> > This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
> > Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
>
> From you, perhaps, there'll be no love lost when Genesis 6:3 becomes
> your eternal reality, except ye repent.
"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he
is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'"
I take it that the Holy Spirit cannot coexist with the flesh. How
does one reconcile that with 1Th 5:23 " ... may your whole spirit
and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ" where the spirit/soul/body is seen as one integral unit ?
I would imagine that one's standing before the Lord is independent to
the doctrine regards loving the Holy Spirit the underlying scriptural
references I'ld like to see.
duke
>On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:41:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>><it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>Christian.
>>
>>Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>
>There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>"anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>without hating people.
Hatred is not necessary. Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and
sloth are capital sins. Allowing these to lead one to self value over others is
a mortal sin.
>By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
>sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin.
Heb 4:15 says Jesus was man **in every way** but did not sin. We, otoh, are
sinners day in and day out, in our words and our thoughts, in what we do and
don't do.
> The Bible
>lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
>Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
>Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
>without sin. People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
>others to do evil also.
If it's Deuteronomy, then works of the hand is the criteria. With Christ, it
became works of the heart, and mankind is a serious failure there.
> The myth that all people must sin has lead many people into sin.
> There are entire chruches and denominations
>that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
>which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
Can you describe "blasphemy against the HS?
Ted L
> On Jun 3, 1:53 pm, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:40 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 3:03 am, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 31, 7:41 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > What's meant by "flesh", here ?
>
> > > > See Galatians 5:17-25
>
> I'm assuming, here, that our bodies is in view that should be despised
> and perhaps pursue a life toward asceticism lest we compromise loving
> the Holy Spirit.
So you've assumed.
>
> > > This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
> > > Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
>
> > From you, perhaps, there'll be no love lost when Genesis 6:3 becomes
> > your eternal reality, except ye repent.
>
> "Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he
> is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'"
>
> I take it that the Holy Spirit cannot coexist with the flesh.
So you've taken it.
>How
> does one reconcile that with 1Th 5:23 " ... may your whole spirit
> and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
> Christ" where the spirit/soul/body is seen as one integral unit ?
>
> I would imagine that one's standing before the Lord is independent to
> the doctrine regards loving the Holy Spirit the underlying scriptural
> references I'ld like to see.
So you've imagined that.
roy...@gmail.com
> On Jun 3, 12:18 am, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 1:53 pm, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 4:40 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 3:03 am, Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 31, 7:41 pm, roym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > What's meant by "flesh", here ?
>
> > > > > See Galatians 5:17-25
>
> > I'm assuming, here, that our bodies is in view that should be despised
> > and perhaps pursue a life toward asceticism lest we compromise loving
> > the Holy Spirit.
>
> So you've assumed.
>
>
>
> > > > This is the first time I've heard that we should "love the Holy
> > > > Spirit". Is there scripture to this effect?
>
> > > From you, perhaps, there'll be no love lost when Genesis 6:3 becomes
> > > your eternal reality, except ye repent.
>
> > "Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he
> > is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'"
>
> > I take it that the Holy Spirit cannot coexist with the flesh.
>
> So you've taken it.
Isn't that the passage informs us that we must despise our flesh ?
>
> >How
> > does one reconcile that with 1Th 5:23 " ... may your whole spirit
> > and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
> > Christ" where the spirit/soul/body is seen as one integral unit ?
How does Genesis 6:3 and 1Th 5:23 reconcile ?
>
> > I would imagine that one's standing before the Lord is independent to
> > the doctrine regards loving the Holy Spirit the underlying scriptural
> > references I'ld like to see.
>
> So you've imagined that.
Let me put this in a more definitive way, then:
Scriptural truths stand independent of our understanding of it; and
therefore encompass the teaching of loving the Holy Spirit that comes
from it ( the underlying scriptural references I'ld like to see).
guardian Snow
> >>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
> >>Christian.
>
> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>
> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible.
There are 10 Commandments as part of the covenant.
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
Isa 28:10 For it is: command upon command, command upon command, line
upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.
Isa 28:11 For with a jabbering lip and a foreign tongue He speaks to
this people,
Isa 28:12 to whom He said, “This is the rest, give rest to the weary,”
and, “This is the refreshing.” But they would not hear.
Isa 28:13 But the Word of [Yahweh] יהוה was to them, “Command upon
command, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a
little, there a little,” so that they go and shall stumble backward,
and be broken and snared and taken captive.
< but my mind is earnestly seeking the Lord.
Lord is a title granted by the King upon men that are his servants
loyal to his cause. Men seek to dominate other people and yet, in
scriptures we are to have no “Lords” aka Baal’s or “King” and one of
the first great sin’s of Israel was in fact to appoint a ruler over
them that was a man.
1Sa 8:5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk
in your ways. Now appoint for us a sovereign to rule us like all the
nations.” 6 But the word was evil in the eyes of Shemu’ĕl when they
said, “Give us a sovereign to rule us.” So Shemu’ĕl prayed to [Yahweh]
יהוה.
1Sa 12:17 “Is today not the wheat harvest? Let me call to [Yahweh]
יהוה, so that He sends thunder and rain – know then and see that your
evil is great, which you have done in the eyes of [Yahweh] יהוה, in
asking for yourselves a sovereign.”
This great truth is glossed over and replaced because men seek to rule
over you and this is not the desire of our set apart Elohim in
heaven. He has given a covenant with man and men seek to subvert this
covenant for the sake of MAN’S RULE over other men. This is why they
have removed the name of Yahweh and replaced it with a subservient
title that serves men.
We are not to seek “Lords” because I promise you, you will find them
in every church congregation that subverts the truth of his name.
1Sa 8:7 And [Yahweh] יהוה said to Shemu’ĕl, “Listen to the voice of
the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected
you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.
When men subvert his name it is because they have rejected Yahweh from
reigning over them. They have no true desire to serve ONLY Yahweh and
for them, religion is just another conduit of power over others.
In the world religion, you will find one name common in ALL religions,
the Freemasonry deity of “GOD”, a Phoenician deity spoken against by
the Prophets of Yahweh.
Rev 13:7 And it was given to him to fight with the set-apart ones and
to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and
tongue and nation.
Everybody keeps looking around to find “anti-Christ” not realizing
that they have been living in the Babylonian translation for a
thousand years already!
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
The King James per-Version contains almost 2000 different
mistranslations, and of those over 500 changed the meaning of the text
itself. One of the many mistranslations happens about 6,800 times when
they translate YHVH into a meaningless “LORD” instead of the proper
YAHweh. Why do you think Satan would want to do this? The scriptures
say, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved". If
you don't know his name, then you can't call on His name and you won't
ever know his name if you are reading the King James per-Version. The
King James per-Version is authorized by Satan and Satan alone.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom
YAHWEH shall call.
Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from
"Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-
worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek
and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of
Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord."
The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most
Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute
name for YHVH (Yahweh).
YHVH (Yahweh) is the Name given to Moshe/Moses in Exodus 3:15. It is
the Name of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which appears in
the Hebrew manuscripts, and is to be known by His people throughout
all generations.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the
least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-
cheeked harlot we have got hold of.
Lord Byron
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and
responsibility to give something back by becoming more.
Tony Robbins
Aaron
<lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>Aaron wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >> Christian.
>> >
>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>
>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>> without hating people.
>
>Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
>Biblical commandment is being broken.
Wrong.
God is not so unjust as to judge us guilty without warning.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>Aaron wrote:
>>> duke wrote:
>>> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>> >> Christian.
>>> >
>>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>
>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>> without hating people.
>>
>>Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
>>Biblical commandment is being broken.
>
>Wrong.
Simply recall what happened to Adam and Eve for their not doing what
GOD wanted, which at the time was definitely not a written Biblical
commandment:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/028c5432f616b500?
Most assuredly, without doubt, I know and understand GOD to be kind,
just, and right (Jeremiah 9:24).
Again, Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
Aaron
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:52:44 -0400, Aaron <an...@home.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:41:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>><it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>Christian.
>>>
>>>Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>
>>There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>"anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>without hating people.
>
>Hatred is not necessary. Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and
>sloth are capital sins. Allowing these to lead one to self value over others is
>a mortal sin.
No, these are not all sins though they are all poor character traits
and can lead to sin. the a Catholic church made up the "Seven Deadly
Sins" in a time whem most Catholics were illiterate. Since 613 was
too much for most to remember a list of seven things that lead to
committing most sins was formulated.
>
>>By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
>>sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin.
>
>Heb 4:15 says Jesus was man **in every way** but did not sin. We, otoh, are
>sinners day in and day out, in our words and our thoughts, in what we do and
>don't do.
That is just Roman Catholic Mythology used to scare the ignorant
masses into giving the church money back when they sold indulgences.
>
>> The Bible
>>lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
>>Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
>>Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
>>without sin. People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
>>others to do evil also.
>
>If it's Deuteronomy, then works of the hand is the criteria. With Christ, it
>became works of the heart, and mankind is a serious failure there.
There was no change in criteria. In Matthew 5 and 6 (Sermon on the
Mount), Messiah added the requirement of Kavanah (the Jewish doctrine
that a person's actions must be motivated by love for God or love for
humanity to have any moral value). So, in reality, Messiah made the
Law more difficult to follow since mechanical actions done without
preoper motivations don't count. This was not much of a change though
since most Jews already believed this from reading the Torah (the
first five books of the Bible). Obviously, Messiah, Who was without
sin, did not violate any of God's Commandments. Therefore He did not
sin by anulling any of the Commandments since that is forbidden in
Deuteronomy 4:2.
>
>> The myth that all people must sin has lead many people into sin.
>> There are entire chruches and denominations
>>that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
>>which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
>
>Can you describe "blasphemy against the HS?
I prefer to allow Rabbi Shaul (Paul) to do so.
In Hebrew 10:26-29, he wrote that the violation of any of the 613
commandments that is done in a high handed/remorseless manner after
accepting Messiah is unforgivable and blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit. This verse also harmonized Matthew 12:30-32 (also Mark
3:28&29) with Numbers 15:30&31, which uses the same definition but
calls the act "blasphemy against YHVH." If you choose to cross
reference with Leviticus, you will see that the difference between a
Guilt (knowing violation of a Commandment) and the unforgivable sin is
remorse. Also, that remorse must come before the sinner is caught and
brought to judgement. In the case of being "caught" by God, it cannot
be Him knowing what you did since He knows all your actions before
your birth; therefore, it must mean being brought to judgement. We
are brought to judgement after we die, so as long as we live, we can
still repent and be forgiven.
The problem with these denominations is that they teach people not to
feel remorse for their evil actions. Some use the Satanic doctrine of
Antinomianism claiming that people no longer need to obey God. (I
used "Satanic" there because in Second Thessalonians, Chapter Two,
Rabbi Shaul stated that this theology is the distinguishing mark of
the anti-christ.
>
>The Dukester, American-American
>*****
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Aaron
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 11:52 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> >>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>> >>Christian.
>>
>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>
>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible.
>
>There are 10 Commandments as part of the covenant.
LOL
That is not true at all. The "Ten Utterances" as they are called in
the Bible, consist of 14 Commandments. Furthermore, the Covenant
includes all 613 Commandments that God gave.
>
>Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
>to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
"Ten Words" is a mistranslation of "Aseret HaDvarim ("The Ten
Declarations" or "The Ten Utterances")."
I notice that you did not continue the passage with verse 14 wich
states that the rest of the 613 are also commanded by God.
>
>Isa 28:10 For it is: command upon command, command upon command, line
>upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.
>Isa 28:11 For with a jabbering lip and a foreign tongue He speaks to
>this people,
>Isa 28:12 to whom He said, “This is the rest, give rest to the weary,”
>and, “This is the refreshing.” But they would not hear.
>Isa 28:13 But the Word of [Yahweh] ???? was to them, “Command upon
>command, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a
>little, there a little,” so that they go and shall stumble backward,
>and be broken and snared and taken captive.
Yes, God, through Mosheh, did teach the the Mitzvot Mitzvah by Mitzvah
rather than all at once because people would not have learned if
taught all 613 in one sitting.
>
>< but my mind is earnestly seeking the Lord.
>
>Lord is a title granted by the King upon men that are his servants
>loyal to his cause. Men seek to dominate other people and yet, in
>scriptures we are to have no “Lords” aka Baal’s or “King” and one of
>the first great sin’s of Israel was in fact to appoint a ruler over
>them that was a man.
God gave specific commandments for a human King of Israel.
He must be a Jew, he must write at least one Torah Scroll (one to be
keot in the treasury ans one to be with him at all times), he must not
have too many wives (usually thought to be no more that 18), he must
not amass wealth for himself, and he must not own so mant horses that
he must stable some of them in Egypt.
>
>1Sa 8:5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk
>in your ways. Now appoint for us a sovereign to rule us like all the
>nations.” 6 But the word was evil in the eyes of Shemu’el when they
>said, “Give us a sovereign to rule us.” So Shemu’el prayed to [Yahweh]
>????.
You skipped a lot there. In verse 7 HaShem says that the sin is not
appointing a king but rejecting the Judge (Samuel) that HaShem placed
over Israel.
In Chapter 9 HaShem, not Israel appoint Shaul to be King of Israel.
***SNIP***
>
>1Sa 8:7 And [Yahweh] ???? said to Shemu’el, “Listen to the voice of
>the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected
>you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.
>
>When men subvert his name it is because they have rejected Yahweh from
>reigning over them. They have no true desire to serve ONLY Yahweh and
>for them, religion is just another conduit of power over others.
>
>In the world religion, you will find one name common in ALL religions,
>the Freemasonry deity of “GOD”, a Phoenician deity spoken against by
>the Prophets of Yahweh.
>
Ah!
Now I see what you were getting at!
You are taking Issue with the terms "Lord," and "God" for HaShem. I
am sure that you will also take issue with "HaShem."
"God" is the closest English word to "Elohim." It is closer than
"faith" is to "emmunah" and "pistis," and does not change the meaning
as "faith" does. People who speak Hebrew know that there is no way to
pronounce YHVH because we do not know the vowels. We do know that it
could not have been "yaweh" because there is no "w" sound in Biblical
Hebrew.
I will also point out that Freemasonry does not have its own deity.
Freemasonry is not a religion, but does require that members believe
in a "Supreme Being" but leaves the specifics up to the individual.
The English word "God" does come from the Germanic "Gott," but that is
a generic term for any deity, just as "Elohay" can be used for God or
as a generic term depending on context.
***SNIP***
>
>Everybody keeps looking around to find “anti-Christ” not realizing
>that they have been living in the Babylonian translation for a
>thousand years already!
>
>Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of ????
>[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
>
> The King James per-Version contains almost 2000 different
>mistranslations, and of those over 500 changed the meaning of the text
>itself.
You numbers are a little off. There are over 9000 mistranslations and
the English definitions of over 800 words have changed since the
translation was done.
>One of the many mistranslations happens about 6,800 times when
>they translate YHVH into a meaningless “LORD” instead of the proper
>YAHweh.
That is not a mistranslation. "Lord" is a translation of "Adonai"
which is used in place of YHVH when reading from the Scriptures or
praying in Hebrew, while HaShem is used in discussion or when praying
in other languages. Both are used to show respect for HaShem because
the use of a mispronounced version of YHVH would be an insult to
HaShem. Since YHVH has no vowels, "Yahweh" is a mistransliteration.
>Why do you think Satan would want to do this? The scriptures
>say, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved". If
>you don't know his name, then you can't call on His name and you won't
>ever know his name if you are reading the King James per-Version. The
>King James per-Version is authorized by Satan and Satan alone.
Wrong. It was done over the centuries in steps from one language to
another by men who hated Jews and wanted to dejudaize the Bible.
Can a Christian who does not know that Messiah's real name is Yshu`a
be saved? Yes! Can a Christian who knows that Messiah's name is
Yshu`a but refuses to use it because it is hebrew be saved? I won't
judge that one, but it sounds like the person hates Jews more than he
loves Messiah.
You demonstate a focus on the name of HaShem, but not a great deal of
Hebrew knowledge.
Terry Cross
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:57:26 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:52:44 -0400, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
"Count"? As in ka-ching?
You might have missed something in that Sermon.
TCross
guardian Snow
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:34:01 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>
Yehoshua is does not save you, Yahweh saves, that is what his name
means.
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and does not
come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Isa 45:20 “Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you who
have escaped from the gentiles. No knowledge have they who are lifting
up the wood of their carved image, and pray to a mighty one that does
not save.
Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from
that time? Is it not I, [Yahweh] יהוה? And there is no mighty one
besides Me, a righteous Ěl and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.
Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
am Ěl, and there is none else.
What part of the prophets words don't you believe? Yehoshua saves you
by his knowledge and teachings of Elohim.
Joh 12:44 Then [Yehoshua] יהושע cried out and said, “He who believes
in Me, believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
walksalone
news:fc280b64-47d3-4c21...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 3, 11:52 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
This is through but not to guardian Snow, apparently he'd been taking too
much of this namesake in order to understand what will be said.
>> >>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a
>> >>real Christian.
>>
>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:
> 15.
>>
>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible.
>
> There are 10 Commandments as part of the covenant.
That would be what, a third or fourth covenant, the one made with Moses?
And is that the appropriate one, after all, supposedly he threw a tizzy fit
and broke the tablets. Not to mention, there's more than one that
decalogue in Exodus.
> Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded
> you to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
But he didn't, the second edition was done by Moses. Or, so that's the
official rumor found in the Hebrew Bible.
Snip continued attempts to use individual quotes and passages to indicate
he knows things no one else does.
> < but my mind is earnestly seeking the Lord.
> Lord is a title granted by the King upon men that are his servants
> loyal to his cause. Men seek to dominate other people and yet, in
> scriptures we are to have no “Lords” aka Baal’s or “King”
> and one of the first great sin’s of Israel was in fact to appoint a
> ruler over them that was a man.
Their rulers were always men. That's why it is referred to as a
patriarchal society. Women, men, as well in many societies with in the
Mideast today, are subservient to men at all times.
Snip what was pretty much a repetition of a previous post titled rejecting
the Lord at 119 lines.
Now here's more repetition that Snow likes to avoid.
Yes, snow, this one is for you so you can feel good about yourself.
From: guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.messianic.ye
shua,alt.bible,alt.messianic
Subject: The battle of Good and Evil
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <829f0745-9db9-4340-a809-
874e7f...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> Were you going to comment and decided not too?
Neither, but that does not concern you. What does concern the
audience is your posturing & speaking of things you are glaringly
ignorant of.
To wit: the title of this thread you introduced & crossposted in
order to impress yourself.
There is no battle between good & evil, just people like you
pretending there is.
Good: an artificial concept used to describe things we want to do,
or have done to us. In nature, which we are part of, there is no
collective concious concept of good.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Evil: Another artificial concept used to describe things we don't
want, or don't want done to ourselves.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Collectively, used to mold peoples mental patterns in an effort to
control them. Both politicians & high & low priests use the terms
interchangably.
The concepts are useful when used as something other than boogey men.
Good, that which befefits a society, or gene pool, preferrably
without harming others.
Bad, that which harms a society or gene pool by causeing harm to
others, or a gene pool.
Now, you can play with those observations, you can play with the
dictionary & claim they are wrong. Or you can show them to be wrong
& you to be right. Care to play?
Hint, I will cram your attempts to divert & sidetrack by employing
scripture as an authority right back down your throat.
After all, what makes yolu think that if the Hebrew Bible & Greek
testments have historical errors, & they do, they don't have
mythological claims for the truth wrong as well.
No, that is not a threat, I don't bother with them. It is a fact.
Your only choice, should you elect to play BMOC, is to address the
concepts & falsify them.
walksalone, who doubts that Snow has ever had an original thought in his
mind when he comes to his mythology. He's managed to generate the
impression that all he has is a nonstop parrot for somebody else's ideas,
only his case, it's rather obvious. He cannot even modify them to hide the
fact, that the thinking is beyond his ability to originate.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast
ignorance in a Christian and
laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
roy...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Innews:d1d8ff58-b972-4b20...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com,
> Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> typed:
How does a Christian despise his flesh(=body) on the teaching of Gen
6:3 and Gal 5:17-25 ?
Do we have examples from the apostolic church how they worked that out
in their lives?
Qadosh Stephanos
<it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>
>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>Christian.
I guess that means God is not a Christian.
Aaron
<disc...@T3WIJ.com> wrote:
>Aaron wrote:
>>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>Aaron wrote:
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>> >> Christian.
>>>> >
>>>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>>
>>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>>> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>>> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>>> without hating people.
>>>
>>>Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
>>>Biblical commandment is being broken.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Simply recall what happened to Adam and Eve for their not doing what
>GOD wanted, which at the time was definitely not a written Biblical
>commandment:
They violated one of the two Commandments that they were given.
>
>
>Most assuredly, without doubt, I know and understand GOD to be kind,
>just, and right (Jeremiah 9:24).
>
>Again, Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
"Again"????
You have to ask something once before adding "again" to the question.
Failure to do so is to tell a lie. Of course, calling yourself a
cardiologist when you are not is also a lie.
Since Messiah's name is "Yshu`a," the use of the fake greek name
"Jesus" is an insult to Messiah and to God when coming from those who
know better. Also, it should be clarified that "Lord" is a
translation of the Greek Word "kurios" which was used in Greek
translations to translate "Adonai," a euphemism used for the Divine
Name. That having been said: Yshu`a is Adonai.
Aaron
There is no need for a sound effect.
Count as in "matter." Mechanical observances devoid of love for God
or love for humanity have no moral value.
>
>You might have missed something in that Sermon.
Nope.
>
>TCross
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Aaron wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>> Aaron wrote:
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>> >> Christian.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>>>> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>>>> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>>>> without hating people.
>>>>
>>>>Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
>>>>Biblical commandment is being broken.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Simply recall what happened to Adam and Eve for their not doing what
>>GOD wanted, which at the time was definitely not a written Biblical
>>commandment:
>
> They violated one of the two Commandments that they were given.
"Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was not a
written Biblical commandment.
>>Most assuredly, without doubt, I know and understand GOD to be kind,
>>just, and right (Jeremiah 9:24).
>>
>>Again, Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>
>"Again"????
"Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?"
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/27dede31ff48f04f?
>You have to ask something once before adding "again" to the question.
See above.
>Failure to do so is to tell a lie.
It remains my personal choice to continue to be mindful of WDJW by
continuing to write truthfully.
> Of course, calling yourself a
> cardiologist when you are not is also a lie.
Thankfully, am obviously a cardiologist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
Your attempt at insinuating that I am not a cardiologist is forgiven
by me in keeping with WDJW, which is the name of Jesus' church
(Matthew 16:18).
Sin does occur at the level of thought.
>Since Messiah's name is "Yshu`a," the use of the fake greek name
>"Jesus" is an insult to Messiah and to God when coming from those who
>know better.
The Holy Spirit gives those of us, who are true Christians (either Jew
or gentile), the ability to speak in all languages except lying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
> Also, it should be clarified that "Lord" is a
>translation of the Greek Word "kurios" which was used in Greek
>translations to translate "Adonai," a euphemism used for the Divine
>Name. That having been said: Yshu`a is Adonai.
Writing it is not the same as publicly saying it.
That being written, please allow me to hear you say "Jesus is LORD" in
accord with what is written in 1 Cor 12:3 by your leaving it on the
voicemail of the number given at the bottom of the following web site:
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
Aaron
Yehoshua son of Nun???
Maybe your lack of Hebrew knowledge has caused you to misspeak (or
"mistype" in this case). There is no meaning for YHVH other than the
fact that it is the Name of God. The vowel sounds were lost, probably
when the saducees took over the Temple with the help of the Romans.
Messiah's name is "Yshu`a," which is Hebrew for "Salvation." This
name is anglicized as "Jesus" by translators who make the mistake of
changing names. "Yehoshua (ang;licized as "Joshua")" is Hebrew for
"God is my salvation." Obviously, Messiah being divine did not need
to be saved, He came to accomplish our salvation by dieing for our
sins. YHVH does not mean "salvation."
The name "Yaweh" is man-made and does not appear in the Bible. The
letters YHVH do appear, but there is no "w" sound in Biblical Hebrew,
so even if you got the vowels correct, that name can not be the name
of HaShem.
Linguistics aside, you are partially correct if you are saying that it
is HaShem (God the Father) who forgives sins, but it should also be
stated that this is because Yshu`a gave His life for the forgiveness
of our sins. If you are saying that the phonetics of a name for God
or Messiah give salvation, you are in error.
>
>Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
>believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and does not
>come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
>
>Isa 45:20 “Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you who
>have escaped from the gentiles. No knowledge have they who are lifting
>up the wood of their carved image, and pray to a mighty one that does
>not save.
>Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
>together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from
>that time? Is it not I, [Yahweh] ????? And there is no mighty one
>besides Me, a righteous El and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.
>Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
>am El, and there is none else.
Obviously you do not have access to a Hebrew Tanakh. What your
translation renders as "a righteous El" is hyphenated into a single
term/title. It is more accurately translated as "God of
Righteousness" or a little less acurately "Righteous God." "El" by
the way, is not a name, it just means "god" or "God" depending on
context.
>
>What part of the prophets words don't you believe? Yehoshua saves you
>by his knowledge and teachings of Elohim.
>
> Joh 12:44 Then [Yehoshua] ????? cried out and said, “He who believes
>in Me, believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
The Name Yshu`a appears there, not Yehoshua (Joshua).
Aaron
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in
>news:fc280b64-47d3-4c21...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 3, 11:52Â am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>
>This is through but not to guardian Snow, apparently he'd been taking too
>much of this namesake in order to understand what will be said.
>
>>> >>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a
>>> >>real Christian.
>>>
>>> >Wrong. Â All people, including Christians, are sinners. Â Heb 4:
>> 15.
>>>
>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible.
>>
>> There are 10 Commandments as part of the covenant.
>
>That would be what, a third or fourth covenant, the one made with Moses?
>And is that the appropriate one, after all, supposedly he threw a tizzy fit
>and broke the tablets. Not to mention, there's more than one that
>decalogue in Exodus.
The term "Ten Commandments" is used to describe the fourteen
Commandments of the Aseret haDvarim (Ten Utterances), which are found
in Exodus chapter 20. The list of "ten" Commandments found in Exodus
34 is: a commandments to obey the commandments given that day (which
is not really a commandment at all but does set the reward as God
driving the Pagans out of the Land of Israel, 11 commandments with one
restated and reasons given for more than one.
>
***SNIP
Aaron
Of course not!
walksalone
news:72te255o8ebt5j9um...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:20:27 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in
>>news:fc280b64-47d3-4c21...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 11:52Â am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>>This is through but not to guardian Snow, apparently he'd been taking
>>too much of this namesake in order to understand what will be said.
>>
>>>> >>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a
>>>> >>real Christian.
>>>>
>>>> >Wrong. Â All people, including Christians, are sinners. Â Heb
>>>> >4:
>>> 15.
>>>>
>>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible.
>>>
>>> There are 10 Commandments as part of the covenant.
>>
>>That would be what, a third or fourth covenant, the one made with
>>Moses? And is that the appropriate one, after all, supposedly he
>>threw a tizzy fit and broke the tablets. Not to mention, there's more
>>than one that decalogue in Exodus.
Morning, and thank you for dropping by. I have to wonder though, are you
providing an infomercial, or an apologetic exercise?
> The term "Ten Commandments" is used to describe the fourteen
Within the so-called revealed gods of the desert community, the 10
Commandments, in spite of not being the only decalogue, is as you
describe. Nowhere in those is a unique commandment, that will help a
society stand on its own. There is evidence, to those of us that read in
context as much as possible, but this is simply one of the foundations of
the national epic. A private conversation with a god who imparts wisdom
to the human. In this case, the last god of Judea, Yahweh, and his human
counterpart will also does not exist according to history. Moses. But
that is another subject line and not pertinent in a direct manner. To
this conversation.
This conversation is the inquiry as to which covenant. This event
describes. Why is this covenant to be considered the covenant and
discarded when it is no longer convenient.
> Commandments of the Aseret haDvarim (Ten Utterances), which are found
> in Exodus chapter 20. The list of "ten" Commandments found in Exodus
They are Commandments, or else why would a god utter them? Or are you
saying guns are as frivolous as humans and their conversations?
> 34 is: a commandments to obey the commandments given that day (which
> is not really a commandment at all but does set the reward as God
> driving the Pagans out of the Land of Israel, 11 commandments with one
> restated and reasons given for more than one.
But according to the Hebrew Bible, these are not the 10 utterances.
Those were provided by god, at the beginning of the story. When Moses
left the mountain. He came down and saw the golden calf, a symbol of �l,
the god of Abraham, he went ape shit, threw down the tablets and broke
them. End of story. We no longer have the original 10 utterances. This
creates two problems. First of all, why could a god and not prevent
those tablets from having been broken. Second of all, who wrote the
revised edition? Only the first supposedly was written the god that
Moses was trying to peddle. So, if nothing else, we have the problem of
verifying who the author of these tablets are, and whether they should be
taken seriously or not. Of course, the song and dance invoked by Moses
after he broke the tablets is very impressive, as long as you can claim
it is in the distant past. And part of your national foundation.
The story creates more problems then it solves. When one wants to take
in historical context and try to figure out what it really is supposed to
mean. Beyond a reasonable doubt, Yahweh was not the god of Judeo and
this is verified in Psalms. What it means to the casual reader who
bothers to try to study the history and find the truth of the matter as
much as possible, they are reading the makings of a national epic. In
epic, that pretty much parallels all the other national epics of the
ancient Mediterranean basin, for they shared common knowledge. There are
those acclaimed ancient Judea was an isolated community. Obviously this
is incorrect. We know that the original god will supposedly so weak that
he had to go and Bryant a follower. That follow are made in epic journey
from a land that was fairly comfortable to live in to another land that
he never lived in himself. Hazor, a city of the moon god, was never
under Judeo occupation. As far as can be determined by the various
disciplines concerned with ancient societies. Anthropology and
archaeology.
So to claim that the utterances/Commandments are actually the word of a
god is a bit much for anybody that has read the story to swallow. But
then, I do not accept the Hebrew Bible at face value, because I have
found so many historical errors that I cannot accept the theological
assumptions. As even being close to anybody's facts instead of someone's
wishes.
The evolution of monotheism within the Judaic tradition is based on
various things, none of which are unique to them. He gives every
appearance of an elite portion of society, the priesthood of various
gods, or mercantile class, the indolent wealthy [who always seemed the
way to stir up shit that sounds good on paper but does not fly well by
light of day] or even a fearless leader needs to consolidate his power
and right to rule over others.
We know that during the time of Moses, a high lands of Judea were
occupied by. Primarily, nomadic people. The size of the villages alone
indicate this. They were not large enough to support a large population,
the people they came and went somewhat on schedule, that they could do.
We know roughly when the population explosion occurred, which roughly
corresponds to the time of the Sea people. Or, the first Agean
Apocalypse. This created not only a power vacuum, but a chance to
disperse the wealth of others. During this time era, not only supposedly
was at Torah written [actually committed to paper about -545 Gregorian],
but the influx of people to the Judean high lands started. And it was a
rather large influx. Combine that fact with the claim that fact that
you're on your way to the high lands of Judea, and you are going to take
those lands by conquest, it's a perfect marriage. A storyteller could
ask for no more. Originally he was dealing with people that would have
had knowledge, probably second or third hand, of the destruction of the
city states of the Jordan Valley, as well as the other major powers of
the Mediterranean basin. A destruction so thorough that Egypt never
recovered to its former state of power and glory. Yes, those were some
rough times and just perfect. If you wanted to write a national epic,
you could ask for no better times.
What does this have to do with the Decalogue, this is their justification
for the invasion of the Judean high lands. You will do what god tells
you, never mind whether it is right or wrong. If you do not do as he
tells you, he will make you suffer. Which leads up to several other
polls optical type questions, which I'm not interested because, they are
not pertinent to the study of mythology.
Among those questions, why would his god not foresee these people messing
up with regularity and take steps to correct it before it could happen.
If he could not, then he's not Omni-potent, & never was. But they claim
made on behalf of his god. By all of the revealed gods of the desert
followers is that, their god is Omni-potent. So, obviously, this is a
different god.
Then we get to the problem of Omni-sentience, which obviously this
particular god lacked or it would have would have foreseen the
unworthiness [self proclaimed] of its followers.
No, the Decalogue as claimed by the revealed down to the desert followers
is not the only one. Nor is it a covenant with the people. They had
nothing to say about it, and they were not involved in the decision-
making.
So even though we agree that xianity, Judaism, and Islam, incorrectly
declare the Decalogue Exodus 20 as the word of a particular god, a god
that favors them above all others, we cannot agree on the validity if he
support that position. And that is quite all right, because for me,
Usenet is a means of exchanging ideas and information. Oddly enough,
that was the original intent. If the founders could see it now, I think
they would hang their hands and cry. And I for one would not blame. The
cancer of human ego bloat has struck. The originator of this thread is
one such example, as well as the individual that I originally responded
to. Hopefully, I'm not encouraging very much to that bloat. Hopefully,
I am keeping myself within the original concepts, unless dealing with
particular blowhards that really don't know what they are talking about
it like to pretend they do. I cannot speak one way or the other about
you in that regard, had you not responded to my post, I probably would
still not know what you were writing about unless you were in a thread
that held my interest. That's the way I work it, a line is that it be
not enough time to drink a beer, in a month.
So there we have it, reasons why I cannot accept the Decalogue as a valid
covenant, nor set of instructions to live by. Even though some of those
instructions are pertinent to a society that wants to remain together, is
basically a pretension that a god would inform you [actually, the ancient
founders of Judea.] Of what you have to do in order to have a perfect
society. It wasn't perfect, nor is any society perfect for more reasons
than it will do to get into on Usenet.
Feel free to drop by anytime that you have information that you think I'd
do not have, or a point of view, that is not in concurrence with mine.
As long as you do not try to use Bible quotes to support it, or
philosophy, which is chasing one's own tail. For all practical purposes.
We may have some interesting conversations. Then again maybe not. One
never knows until the fat lady sings. And even then, sometimes the wiser
heads are in doubt.
walksalone who has enjoyed this brief conversation. And even though I
was much more verbose than the other person, Aaron, it is my nature to
give the reasoning behind what I say. Having helped raised seven
wonderful people that call me father, it is a habit I have continued into
my adulthood and into my so-called golden years. I intend to keep this
habit, because it helps keep me aware of why I think as I do. And on
occasion. It makes me rub my nose in my mess. Something I would prefer
to avoid that being human, I suspect will occur with somewhat unamusing
regular frequency. But then, this is life 101, and a final exam is a
killer. And I for one and can do it well enough that one time around
will be enough for me. Of course, in the case of others, YMWV.
I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much
more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers
which might be wrong.
�richard P. Feynman
duke
>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:57:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:52:44 -0400, Aaron <an...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:41:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>>><it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>>Christian.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>
>>>There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>>opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>>"anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>>without hating people.
>>
>>Hatred is not necessary. Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and
>>sloth are capital sins. Allowing these to lead one to self value over others is
>>a mortal sin.
>No, these are not all sins though they are all poor character traits
>and can lead to sin.
That's what I said. When one is consumed by these to the detriment of all,
especially our loved ones, they become mortally corruptive.
> the a Catholic church made up the "Seven Deadly
>Sins" in a time whem most Catholics were illiterate. Since 613 was
>too much for most to remember a list of seven things that lead to
>committing most sins was formulated.
The 613 you reference are physical laws for Jews. The capital sins impact
others.
>>>By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
>>>sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin.
>>
>>Heb 4:15 says Jesus was man **in every way** but did not sin. We, otoh, are
>>sinners day in and day out, in our words and our thoughts, in what we do and
>>don't do.
>That is just Roman Catholic Mythology used to scare the ignorant
>masses into giving the church money back when they sold indulgences.
And Christianity is the corrective move to the faith that chose the golden calf
over God.
>>> The Bible
>>>lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
>>>Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
>>>Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
>>>without sin. People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
>>>others to do evil also.
>>If it's Deuteronomy, then works of the hand is the criteria. With Christ, it
>>became works of the heart, and mankind is a serious failure there.
>There was no change in criteria. In Matthew 5 and 6 (Sermon on the
>Mount), Messiah added the requirement of Kavanah (the Jewish doctrine
>that a person's actions must be motivated by love for God or love for
>humanity to have any moral value).
Jesus specifically declared the works of the law flawed and no more. Heb
8:7-13.
> So, in reality, Messiah made the
>Law more difficult to follow since mechanical actions done without
>preoper motivations don't count.
Not walking 1 mile on the sabbath or not eating pork are no more.
> This was not much of a change though
>since most Jews already believed this from reading the Torah (the
>first five books of the Bible). Obviously, Messiah, Who was without
>sin, did not violate any of God's Commandments. Therefore He did not
>sin by anulling any of the Commandments since that is forbidden in
>Deuteronomy 4:2.
He made specific moves to violate the Levi laws. He healed on the sabbath, etc.
>>> The myth that all people must sin has lead many people into sin.
>>> There are entire chruches and denominations
>>>that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
>>>which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
>>Can you describe "blasphemy against the HS?
>I prefer to allow Rabbi Shaul (Paul) to do so.
That's fine.
>In Hebrew 10:26-29, he wrote that the violation of any of the 613
>commandments that is done in a high handed/remorseless manner after
>accepting Messiah is unforgivable and blasphemy against the Holy
>Spirit. This verse also harmonized Matthew 12:30-32 (also Mark
>3:28&29) with Numbers 15:30&31, which uses the same definition but
>calls the act "blasphemy against YHVH." If you choose to cross
>reference with Leviticus, you will see that the difference between a
>Guilt (knowing violation of a Commandment) and the unforgivable sin is
>remorse. Also, that remorse must come before the sinner is caught and
>brought to judgement. In the case of being "caught" by God, it cannot
>be Him knowing what you did since He knows all your actions before
>your birth; therefore, it must mean being brought to judgement. We
>are brought to judgement after we die, so as long as we live, we can
>still repent and be forgiven.
Good explanation. But he failed to mention 2 things in Heb 10 - the new
command of John 13:34, and the completion of the old covenant in Heb 8. And
that's where the 7 capital sins come from.
All that aside, we call the unforgivable sin as "dying still professing we are
the equal of God", pretty much the same Paul said.
>The problem with these denominations is that they teach people not to
>feel remorse for their evil actions. Some use the Satanic doctrine of
>Antinomianism claiming that people no longer need to obey God. (I
>used "Satanic" there because in Second Thessalonians, Chapter Two,
>Rabbi Shaul stated that this theology is the distinguishing mark of
>the anti-christ.
Did you know that Rabbi Shaul became a Christian?
walksalone
news:q5re25t5vpb5gttcv...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
> <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 1:58 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:34:01 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
>>>
>>> <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 3, 11:52 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>>Yehoshua is does not save you, Yahweh saves, that is what his name
>>means.
Actually, the name known as Jesus throughout any speaking world, means,
Yahweh is my salvation. However, the question arises, how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin? Both observations are just about as
pertinent to real life as anything that is, shall we say, observable and
unprovable.
> Yehoshua son of Nun???
No, that is Snow's pet nickname for his hero. Granted, the first century
version of Jesus was a, variation, of Joshua. But that is not mean the
two neighbors in the house.
> Maybe your lack of Hebrew knowledge has caused you to misspeak (or
You might want to watch no, he claimed to be studying Hebrew. Even
though there is no way to know what the original Biblical Hebrew. Even
really looks like because what we have, dates from the sixth century.
Masoretic[?] Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. A minor example,
we know there were no vowel points in Biblical Hebrew. Get in the Hebrew
we see written today, there are.
> "mistype" in this case). There is no meaning for YHVH other than the
> fact that it is the Name of God. The vowel sounds were lost, probably
Actually, it's quite possible it does have a meaning. But this is
speculation on my part, and I will tell you this up front, I do not know
this to be a valid extraction. There is reason to believe they Yahweh,
the common spelling of the word claimed by the missing Moses as the name
of god, was in fact, the god of a tribe of the Canaanites, a tribe known
as the Kennenites. A very strange thing about that particular group, the
tribe of Caleb is the same tribe that brings us the story of Abraham.
Yes, I realized later, after the so-called invasion of the Judean high
lands as well as the Valley of the Jordan River, they were supposedly
regulated to being hewers of wood and drawers of water, in other words, a
servant class.
An oddity that may well be related, humanity at large has a tendency to,
the exact word I'd do not know, but for lack of a better word, belittle,
those they have done wrong. An example of this is the standing of the
aboriginal peoples throughout the conquered world. Some people call it,
colonization, I call it what it was, invasion, invasion based on greed
and desire to spread the word of god. According to the European version,
which is based on the repeal gods of the desert. In this case, the
second redheaded stepchild.
> when the saducees took over the Temple with the help of the Romans.
If memory serves me right, the Sadducees never had to take over the
Temple. It was theirs by divine right. The priesthood was legally
required to be from the descendents of Aaron. All others are imposters.
By Hebraic biblical law, and that was the supreme law of the land. He
did not matter that no line of David was found to take over the throne
for better than 30 years, it does not matter because, the Hebrew Bible is
still a national epic. There are others that have other uses for it, but
without it, there would be no Jewish population today. A population that
is not unique and has traces of other populations in his genetic makeup.
This includes those that are supposedly pure Jewish.
> Messiah's name is "Yshu`a," which is Hebrew for "Salvation." This
> name is anglicized as "Jesus" by translators who make the mistake of
> changing names. "Yehoshua (ang;licized as "Joshua")" is Hebrew for
> "God is my salvation." Obviously, Messiah being divine did not need
And therein lies one of the many problems. When one claims, something,
one cannot establish as fact, warn is only left with the but, but, but
but but, mode of defense for their claims.
Supposedly blood sacrifice was out, and if you must make your blood
sacrifice because you had no money, then it must be a small animal such
as a pigeon or a dove. Gone were the days when bringing a sheep to the
Temple would do. This was justified in many ways, after all, if you were
an Egyptian Jew making the annual pilgrimage to the Temple. Because, the
Temple at Elephantine island no longer existed, it would be a burden to
you to bring a flock of sheep for sacrifice. However, Egyptian money
would not do for the Temple of Yahweh. For this, in the outer
courtyard's but not within the temple proper, moneychangers were allowed
to operate. For a fee, daily changing money from Egyptian into Judean.
Presumably, that was based on the shekel, a weight and not a coinage. If
you would like more information on this, it's possible I have it. No
warranty of course.
So, we now have the problem of somebody declaring somebody divine without
supporting evidence. Hopefully, you would not accept my claim that Elmer
down at the crossroads is divine. Without evidence such a claim flies in
the face of what we know about the real world. There are those that
pretend there are other worlds that we cannot sense with our ordinary
physical senses. I'd be rather surprised at the lack of such worlds. Do
we understand the world of a bacteria? Pretty much. Can we live or
observe the world will bacteria without special equipment, no. And yet
we are expected to accept a claim of divinity, because we cannot prove it
is not so. This is satisfactory for many, but I am not one of those.
So we have a problem already generated by claiming a divinity does exist,
and then compounding that claim by claiming, not only does that divinity
exist, but in order to correct its mistakes. It sent a part of itself to
commit suicide, temporary suicide, on its behalf and for its
glorification in order that we might pay attention and get our shit
together. Some people actually accept such an idea is being valid. I
cannot come, but I do not blame those that do, for they had to walk their
own path as best they can.
> to be saved, He came to accomplish our salvation by dieing for our
> sins. YHVH does not mean "salvation."
Sounds like Mithra to me, or Horus, or Baucus, or several other previous
and known to the Hill last used that wrote the Greek Testaments, dying
and resurrecting gods. And let's not forget Adonis. Without his
gardens, there would have been no crops. Or so it was believed by the
followers of him who gave life by having gave his life.
The concept is not unique to the ancient Middle East, it's even found in
India where the Krishna cycle is dearly beloved by the population.
> The name "Yaweh" is man-made and does not appear in the Bible. The
Of course it is, all names are man-made. It cannot be otherwise.
> letters YHVH do appear, but there is no "w" sound in Biblical Hebrew,
That I do not know. So provisionally, I accept your statement. What I
do know is, there is no J sound. In either Latin or Hebrew. It's an
import from the Greek. Oddly enough, all of the original Greek
Testaments, well not really, were written in Greek. Why are they called
the Greek Testaments, because that's what they were written in. Why are
they not called the New Testament by biblical scholars, because that
would be in direct violation of the law of Yahweh. A law xians attempt
to bypass and pretend that doesn't pertain to them by claiming a missing
messiah showed up in order to avoid the prohibition. Among other things
> so even if you got the vowels correct, that name can not be the name
> of HaShem.
But he is the unnameable, he is ineffable, he is not capable of being
known or understood by the human mind, if you believe the propaganda.
Strangely enough, this seems to be the attributes of the majority of the
gods of a human construction. Well, not so strange, really. If I was to
have told a story like that to my children, they would have been highly
disappointed in me because they would have instinctively known, I lied.
Something I am proud to say, never had to occur. It was part of the
realize that I would tell them, but the information you need to wait or
study, or analyze, or even in the case of the girls, ask your mother, and
wait for my next return and ask me that question again. Frequently, the
question was never asked again. But when you will as, boy howdy, I had
my work cut out for me because this was important to the kid. And I owed
him or her an honest answer. Even if you boil down to I don't know that
this is what I think. This lack of integrity among xians on Usenet is a
telling point against the faith being one that should be universally
followed blindly. And this is not true of just xianity, I am unaware of
any god claim that can stand on its own.
> Linguistics aside, you are partially correct if you are saying that it
> is HaShem (God the Father) who forgives sins, but it should also be
Sin? Other than than to those that are into guilt trips, what does the
world really mean. Well, it just so happens like so many other words
that are near and dear to the xians heart, it was stolen from common
usage. To be exact & working with a less than infallible memory of the
word sin comes from middle English, were it was used in archery. The
meaning, to miss the mark. It sounds so much better than adomation, and
look at the cost of save the printers in ink alone.
So within the world of the revealed goddess of the desert, the word is
perfectly acceptable for blaming an individual for being the way they
were supposedly created and meant to live. A very sadistic god you have
there, and for you, this is alright as long as it does not affect your
public life. Such as sending you up into a bell tower to kill people,
for god, or permitting a child to die. When it has a curable fatal
disease, because, prayer works. There are more of course, but those are
rather obvious. And there are people that believe in your gods to do
such things, or have done such things.
> stated that this is because Yshu`a gave His life for the forgiveness
There is no record of that in history. The claims for the so-called
crucifixion fly in the face of Roman law as being impossible. This is
easy to verify and by looking up the information it yourself on Usenet.
But if you do that, do yourself a favor. It sure you get your
information from reliable sources are not apologetic sources. Strangely
enough, xians are allowed to lie if it supports the mythology. Yet,
their gods hate liars. Where I come from, we call that a direct
contradiction.
> of our sins. If you are saying that the phonetics of a name for God
> or Messiah give salvation, you are in error.
It does appear that the boy really believes that, but he is a fanatic as
best I can tell. & there is no real way to know what a fanatic will use
in support of their beliefs. The trick is, let them die first for their
belief.
>>Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
>>believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and does not
>>come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
I've always thought it rather odd, xians have to use Greek testimony in
order to support a Jewish concept. That's bad enough, but we don't even
know who the authors were. We do know that they are post-Temple
writings. They are written in reaction to the existence of xianity.
Instead of the start of xianity. That fell to Saul, & some xians are not
happy about that at all.
snip
>>Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
>>am El, and there is none else.
>
> Obviously you do not have access to a Hebrew Tanakh. What your
> translation renders as "a righteous El" is hyphenated into a single
> term/title. It is more accurately translated as "God of
> Righteousness" or a little less acurately "Righteous God." "El" by
> the way, is not a name, it just means "god" or "God" depending on
> context.
�l is not only a name, it is the name of the first god of Judaism. He is
the god of Abraham. Very strange situation here. The most powerful god
of the Canaanite pantheon, so well-known that you can sacrifice to him or
beseech him from anywhere at all. The original Universal god of the
Mediterranean basin. Yet he had to go find a follower and bribe that
follower, one Abraham, in order to generate followers of a particular
type. Exactly what type, I'm not sure. But whoever they were, they were
dishonest enough to use this claim is a foundation for a national epic.
And if they could develop into a mythology that was perfect for rulers,
and therefore never discarded out of hand by that population.
By the way, your confusion about �l being simply a name might come from
the fact that it shares the same root word as the Arabic Al, il to be
exact. Yes, that is the Anglicized version, else it would be simply l,
which to the modern reader would make absolutely no sense. Both words
mean god in general, yet both words are specific to particular god. In
the case of �l, the god of the Canaanite pantheon, and the original
invaders/settlers of the Judean highlands.
Why invaders/settlers? Strange you would ponder that. According to the
Hebrew Bible, they are invaders in spite of the evidence being against
that. According to archaeological evidence, settlers is and more
appropriate term with a gradual development from nomadic, which is
preferred in the Hebrew Bible, to a city, by way of agricultural
lifestyle, which is not preferred in the Hebrew Bible, lifestyle.
snip
>> Joh 12:44 Then [Yehoshua] ????? cried out and said, “He who
>> believes
>>in Me, believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
>
> The Name Yshu`a appears there, not Yehoshua (Joshua).
Save your keystrokes, snow knows, and that's good enough for him. It's
also, if you think like he does, good enough for you. But fanatics are
like that. And the states we say, among many other things, give me a
fanatic, I will sell you a Yugo. Those vehicles are no longer sold
within the United States as far as I know. It was a fanatic, I will
still sell you want and you will gladly pay the import fees. We get to
see this throughout various areas of human history. And usually, was
left behind them was not to the benefit of humanity. A time to recall a
fanatic that improved life for everyone that it influenced directly. I
cannot. And I'm told I have a fairly wide range of knowledge, & if that
is true, it's additional ground to avoid and expose fanatics are what
they are.
walksalone, who has just recently became aware of Aaron, and probably
will not be in that many more threads that he is involved with, unless he
discusses the mythological foundations of xianity. Considering the
newsgroups involved, I tend to doubt that. After all, most people are
not a Jesuit when it comes to proving their faith to themselves. Though
I have no need of the mythology, I must respect them in their pursuit of
why they believe. Bonkers ever damn one of them, but at least they have
been through the crucible, something most xians will avoid like instant
death. [Don't we all just hate generalities, even when they are
appropriate.]Zarathushtra asked Ahura Mazda: 'O Ahura Mazda, most
beneficent Spirit, Maker of the material world, thou Holy One!
'What is the only word in which is contained the glorification of all
good things, of all the things that are the offspring of the good
principle?'
From one of the predecessors of xianity, and its founding mythology.
Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is the praise of Holiness (Asha: the Ashem
Vohu), O Spitama Zarathushtra!
Dr. House
[...]
> Within the so-called revealed gods of the desert community, the 10
> Commandments, in spite of not being the only decalogue, is as you
> describe. Nowhere in those is a unique commandment, that will help a
> society stand on its own. There is evidence, to those of us that read in
> context as much as possible, but this is simply one of the foundations of
> the national epic. A private conversation with a god who imparts wisdom
> to the human. In this case, the last god of Judea, Yahweh,
What were their other gods? Asherah was the wife of Yahweh, yes?
> . . . and his human
> counterpart will also does not exist according to history. Moses.
If any group of Hyksos expelled from Egypt turned nomadic, they would
most likely have had dictators. Do you think Moses is akin to King
Arthur, perhaps a composition of a line of such dictators rather than
an exaggeration of a single dictator? Or do you find the whole thing
to be fabrication?
[..]
> This conversation is the inquiry as to which covenant. This event
> describes. Why is this covenant to be considered the covenant and
> discarded when it is no longer convenient.
Far too much of that goes on.
[...]
> But according to the Hebrew Bible, these are not the 10 utterances.
> Those were provided by god, at the beginning of the story. When Moses
> left the mountain. He came down and saw the golden calf, a symbol of Él,
> the god of Abraham, he went ape shit, threw down the tablets and broke
> them. End of story. We no longer have the original 10 utterances. This
> creates two problems. First of all, why could a god and not prevent
> those tablets from having been broken.
Only one man knew what was on those tablets - the one who broke them.
While anger seems like the natural cover story after the fact wouldn't
it be far more likely that the tablets said the wrong thing? Moses
had one set of information when he went up the mountain. On his way
down he realized there was a new problem. In light of the new
information he needed tablets that said something very different so
destroy the evidence.
> Second of all, who wrote the
> revised edition? Only the first supposedly was written the god that
> Moses was trying to peddle. So, if nothing else, we have the problem of
> verifying who the author of these tablets are, and whether they should be
> taken seriously or not.
Thank you. I double checked and you are right. For some reason that
part of the story doesn't get emphasized much.
> Of course, the song and dance invoked by Moses
> after he broke the tablets is very impressive, as long as you can claim
> it is in the distant past. And part of your national foundation.
>
> The story creates more problems then it solves. When one wants to take
> in historical context and try to figure out what it really is supposed to
> mean.
Doesn't it read as a strait forward challenge to a dictator's
leadership? We need to make that cow into a sin. Then we need to
have the enforcers put down the other faction. Those who submit to
the dictator have mercy - those who won't get executed.
> Beyond a reasonable doubt, Yahweh was not the god of Judeo and
> this is verified in Psalms. What it means to the casual reader who
> bothers to try to study the history and find the truth of the matter as
> much as possible, they are reading the makings of a national epic.
Who was the god(s) of Judeo?
> In
> epic, that pretty much parallels all the other national epics of the
> ancient Mediterranean basin, for they shared common knowledge. There are
> those acclaimed ancient Judea was an isolated community. Obviously this
> is incorrect. We know that the original god will supposedly so weak that
> he had to go and Bryant a follower.
Which is very useful if one (or one's hero) has committed genocide and
needs a god to blame for it.
> That follow are made in epic journey
> from a land that was fairly comfortable to live in to another land that
> he never lived in himself. Hazor, a city of the moon god, was never
> under Judeo occupation. As far as can be determined by the various
> disciplines concerned with ancient societies. Anthropology and
> archaeology.
>
> So to claim that the utterances/Commandments are actually the word of a
> god is a bit much for anybody that has read the story to swallow. But
> then, I do not accept the Hebrew Bible at face value, because I have
> found so many historical errors that I cannot accept the theological
> assumptions. As even being close to anybody's facts instead of someone's
> wishes.
>
> The evolution of monotheism within the Judaic tradition is based on
> various things, none of which are unique to them. He gives every
> appearance of an elite portion of society, the priesthood of various
> gods, or mercantile class, the indolent wealthy [who always seemed the
> way to stir up shit that sounds good on paper but does not fly well by
> light of day] or even a fearless leader needs to consolidate his power
> and right to rule over others.
I'm not following you on anything in this paragraph. Would you mind
expanding on these concepts please? Thanks.
> We know that during the time of Moses, a high lands of Judea were
> occupied by. Primarily, nomadic people. The size of the villages alone
> indicate this. They were not large enough to support a large population,
> the people they came and went somewhat on schedule, that they could do.
> We know roughly when the population explosion occurred, which roughly
> corresponds to the time of the Sea people. Or, the first Agean
> Apocalypse. This created not only a power vacuum, but a chance to
> disperse the wealth of others. During this time era, not only supposedly
> was at Torah written [actually committed to paper about -545 Gregorian],
> but the influx of people to the Judean high lands started. And it was a
> rather large influx. Combine that fact with the claim that fact that
> you're on your way to the high lands of Judea, and you are going to take
> those lands by conquest, it's a perfect marriage. A storyteller could
> ask for no more.
How does that fit in with Iron Age dynasties such a the Omride?
> Originally he was dealing with people that would have
> had knowledge, probably second or third hand, of the destruction of the
> city states of the Jordan Valley, as well as the other major powers of
> the Mediterranean basin. A destruction so thorough that Egypt never
> recovered to its former state of power and glory. Yes, those were some
> rough times and just perfect. If you wanted to write a national epic,
> you could ask for no better times.
>
> What does this have to do with the Decalogue, this is their justification
> for the invasion of the Judean high lands. You will do what god tells
> you, never mind whether it is right or wrong. If you do not do as he
> tells you, he will make you suffer. Which leads up to several other
> polls optical type questions, which I'm not interested because, they are
> not pertinent to the study of mythology.
> Among those questions, why would his god not foresee these people messing
> up with regularity and take steps to correct it before it could happen.
> If he could not, then he's not Omni-potent, & never was. But they claim
> made on behalf of his god. By all of the revealed gods of the desert
> followers is that, their god is Omni-potent. So, obviously, this is a
> different god.
> Then we get to the problem of Omni-sentience, which obviously this
> particular god lacked or it would have would have foreseen the
> unworthiness [self proclaimed] of its followers.
Or the good king - bad king / good people - bad people cycle describes
a human point of view specifically how each supported one sect or
religious faction. Those who do good things for my temple will go
down in my history as being good, pleasing god and so on. Favor my
competition and - well you are evil.
> No, the Decalogue as claimed by the revealed down to the desert followers
> is not the only one. Nor is it a covenant with the people. They had
> nothing to say about it, and they were not involved in the decision-
> making.
I've heard it said (I lack the background to verify myself) that Deut
reads like an Assyrian contract between overlord and subject.
> So even though we agree that xianity, Judaism, and Islam, incorrectly
> declare the Decalogue Exodus 20 as the word of a particular god, a god
> that favors them above all others, we cannot agree on the validity if he
> support that position.
[...]
> So there we have it, reasons why I cannot accept the Decalogue as a valid
> covenant, nor set of instructions to live by. Even though some of those
> instructions are pertinent to a society that wants to remain together, is
> basically a pretension that a god would inform you [actually, the ancient
> founders of Judea.] Of what you have to do in order to have a perfect
> society. It wasn't perfect, nor is any society perfect for more reasons
> than it will do to get into on Usenet.
[...]
Aaron
It was a commandment given directly by God.
>
>>>Most assuredly, without doubt, I know and understand GOD to be kind,
>>>just, and right (Jeremiah 9:24).
>>>
>>>Again, Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>>
>>"Again"????
>
>"Aaron, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?"
>
>Source:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/27dede31ff48f04f?
>
>>You have to ask something once before adding "again" to the question.
>
>See above.
Never read the article, and never use Google groups to access Usenet.
>
>>Failure to do so is to tell a lie.
>
>It remains my personal choice to continue to be mindful of WDJW by
>continuing to write truthfully.
>
>> Of course, calling yourself a
>> cardiologist when you are not is also a lie.
>
>Thankfully, am obviously a cardiologist:
I have read your posts. You seem to be completely ignorant of
cariology and your claims to be a medical doctor have been disproven
by many people.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
Well this video demonstrates that you do not know the symptoms of
influenza. Also the term "pan-flu" demonstrated that you do not have
any real understanding of virology of epidemiology
>
>Your attempt at insinuating that I am not a cardiologist is forgiven
>by me in keeping with WDJW, which is the name of Jesus' church
>(Matthew 16:18).
I did not insinuate, I am saying that you are not a medical doctor at
all.
Matthew 16:18 does not say that the name of Messiah's congregation is
"WDJW."
>
>Sin does occur at the level of thought.
Yes, and your insane need to be seen as a medical doctor despite near
complete ignorance of medicine is evidence of a very disordered mind.
>
>>Since Messiah's name is "Yshu`a," the use of the fake greek name
>>"Jesus" is an insult to Messiah and to God when coming from those who
>>know better.
>
>The Holy Spirit gives those of us, who are true Christians (either Jew
>or gentile), the ability to speak in all languages except lying:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
Bizarre.
>> Also, it should be clarified that "Lord" is a
>>translation of the Greek Word "kurios" which was used in Greek
>>translations to translate "Adonai," a euphemism used for the Divine
>>Name. That having been said: Yshu`a is Adonai.
>
>Writing it is not the same as publicly saying it.
You may not have noticed that this is a text based media.
>
>That being written, please allow me to hear you say "Jesus is LORD" in
>accord with what is written in 1 Cor 12:3 by your leaving it on the
>voicemail of the number given at the bottom of the following web site:
You sound like some kind of stalker or pedophile.
I am well over 18, so your attempt to lure me into some sort of
contect with you will not get you what you seem to want!
You are obviously mentally ill.
walksalone
news:68a2d405-a6cf-472a...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
This was all done by AVR and I suppose I can blame all mistakes on them.
But I won't, mistakes are my responsibility, and due to a sorry job of
proofreading.
> [...]
>> Within the so-called revealed gods of the desert community, the 10
>> Commandments, in spite of not being the only decalogue, is as you
>> describe. �Nowhere in those is a unique commandment, that will help a
>> society stand on its own. �There is evidence, to those of us that
>> read
> in
>> context as much as possible, but this is simply one of the
>> foundations of the national epic. �A private conversation with a god
>> who imparts wisdo
> m
>> to the human. �In this case, the last god of Judea, Yahweh,
>
> What were their other gods? Asherah was the wife of Yahweh, yes?
Not that it makes a difference as far as I'm concerned, but she was his
consort. She was also the consort of the prior god or actually, if my
suspicions are correct, gods. In this case I'm referring strictly to the
senior gods.
�l, the original god of Judea, because, he was the god of Abraham
Baal, also had Asherah as a consort, but he was not a sum of �l. His
father was Dagon, whose first found in symbology within the Hebrew Bibles
as the big fish that swallowed Jonah. Thereby displaying the power of
god over for gods.
And last but certainly not least, Yahweh.
I keep a reference book nearby that may provide more detail. Or, raise
more questions about the subject. I know that your reading habits, nor
way of thought and those are not important for this conversation.
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
Unless you like a handy reference, I strongly recommend you let your
local library obtains a copy for you. Do not be surprised if it is a
restricted loan and a read only in the library text. It is a bit
expensive.
And I suspect, that like me, you will not agree with everything. The
authors write.
>> . . . and his human
>> counterpart will also does not exist according to history. �Moses.
> If any group of Hyksos expelled from Egypt turned nomadic, they would
I don't believe it was the Hykos, the cultures are not the same, nor can
we link them through their pottery. We don't see the Egyptian culture
being assimilated by the Judean population. Later we see quite a bit of
Egyptian culture being absorbed into the Judean population. A book that
might help you with that is:
Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel
Again, you may wish to have your local library up a copy for you to
peruse. And again, the answer is your findings may not equal mine.
Would you mind if I quit adding that disclaimer?
> most likely have had dictators. Do you think Moses is akin to King
> Arthur, perhaps a composition of a line of such dictators rather than
I think Moses is like Abraham, a pivotal point in the national epic. All
ethics have a beginning, a journey, and a potential end. In the case of
the Judaic national epic, Moses is a continuation of Abraham. Not of the
line of Abraham strangely enough, but a hero role being touted as a true
story. Of course, the stories of the other ancient heroes such as
Hercules were touted the same way. They were expected to be believed.
> an exaggeration of a single dictator? Or do you find the whole thing
> to be fabrication?
The foreign kings, some say Shepherd Kings, and I don't know which if
either is correct, did exist. That is not optional. Just as the Sea
people existed, and they were extremely destructive because they took out
the entire Mediterranean basin civilization with the exception of Egypt.
& the time period is somewhat similar in that it overlaps. My suspicion,
and I cannot find the evidence, or at least not if it's good enough to
say, AH!!!, I gotcha, is that the Hykoss was the result of Egypt allowing
nomads to water their flocks and till land in the delta region of the
Nile. Nomads do not like to move their flocks around, this causes weight
loss, tougher meat, and is a pain in the ass. Given enough time, a
population could build up and take over the delta. For starters. But
the intrusion of the Judaic patriarchs into Egyptian history, lacks
authenticity as well as not being that believable if you understand
Egyptian history. Very much. The pharaohs we're not above using
somebody else to do their work, and that would include those from other
lands. They were very careful about how much power those people got,
because they could be dethroned if the power got out of hand. And if you
can as well as other nations history does have cases where, subordinates
took over the leadership. I would have to dig in my notes, and, right
now. Time is not that free.
What we have in the case of Moses is, to those that want to study in
depth, the fabrication. It requires a stretch of the imagination is out
of this world.
We start out with 12 minor tribes, for each patriarchs would have held
leadership of a group that one could call a tribe, that is it for only
four generations at most, grew to a population of almost 2 million. When
we add to that the disappearance of those 2 million from the population
and the destruction of the Egyptian army without anybody else in the
world noticing and plundering Egypt. When it was without leadership,
well, let's just say my imagination is not that fertile.
In the case of the Sea people, they left evidence throughout the
Mediterranean basin that they were there. A strange story in its own
right, and it came about because there was peace among the nations.
> [..]
>> This conversation is the inquiry as to which covenant. �This event
>> describes. �Why is this covenant to be considered the covenant and
>> discarded when it is no longer convenient.
>
> Far too much of that goes on.
Well, of course, you're dealing with people, some cases involving
extremely self-centered people. If the covenant, just like a church,
does not fit what you want to do, you find another one. Anybody can
declare a passage a covenant, and probably justify it. Well, no, I
can't.
> [...]
>> But according to the Hebrew Bible, these are not the 10 utterances. �
>> Those were provided by god, at the beginning of the story. �When
>> Moses left the mountain. �He came down and saw the golden calf, a
>> symbol of
> �l,
>> the god of Abraham, he went ape shit, threw down the tablets and
>> broke them. �End of story. �We no longer have the original 10
>> utterances.
> �This
>> creates two problems. �First of all, why could a god and not prevent
>> those tablets from having been broken.
>
> Only one man knew what was on those tablets - the one who broke them.
This makes a presupposition I'm not willing to grant. It requires the
existence of two individuals, that I have no reason to believe ever
existed. The god, and Moses.
But for the discussion, would he have known. Remember, god wrote those
instructions, and what language did god speak? We don't know, the
assumption is Hebrew, strangely enough. But assumptions are known to
have a high error rate and not be a good basis for making policy.
> While anger seems like the natural cover story after the fact wouldn't
> it be far more likely that the tablets said the wrong thing? Moses
> had one set of information when he went up the mountain. On his way
I have to react to what the story claims, but I cannot argue against what
you just said.
> down he realized there was a new problem. In light of the new
> information he needed tablets that said something very different so
> destroy the evidence.
A very feasible conclusion. But again based on two presumptions, I don't
make. I've got to quit saying that, you already realize that. But yes,
you have just described a very strong probability. He went up the
mountain in order to come back with his pet god. But when he returned,
the original god was back, the god that would have led them from Egypt to
start with. Ba'al didn't get involved until they had formed a population
within the Judean high lands. Does this mean that Moses, or his
prototype, was from the Kennenite tribe? A very good real possibility.
>>�Second of all, who wrote the
>> revised edition? �Only the first supposedly was written the god that
>> Moses was trying to peddle. �So, if nothing else, we have the problem
>> o
> f
>> verifying who the author of these tablets are, and whether they
>> should be taken seriously or not. �
> Thank you. I double checked and you are right. For some reason that
> part of the story doesn't get emphasized much.
Why would it? That might require the audience to consider what they have
been hearing over the years, definitely a no-no for somebody is going to
defend their salary. Not to mention, it might make the audience very
afraid.
>> Of course, the song and dance invoked by Moses
>> after he broke the tablets is very impressive, as long as you can
>> claim it is in the distant past. �And part of your national
>> foundation.
>>
>> The story creates more problems then it solves. �When one wants to
>> take in historical context and try to figure out what it really is
>> supposed to mean. �
>
> Doesn't it read as a strait forward challenge to a dictator's
> leadership? We need to make that cow into a sin. Then we need to
> have the enforcers put down the other faction. Those who submit to
> the dictator have mercy - those who won't get executed.
Given the society, I don't think so. They were tribal, extremely tribal.
I myself have tribal blood, and I realize how extreme that can be. The
survival of the tribe is all. Nothing matters but that survival. But
here we have, the probability of several different tribes, so which one
is going to gain ascendancy, and how are you going to do it? When you're
writing a national epic, and you're using time. Time so far away that
nobody could remember if they had to, you create situations that are
dynamic, vibrant, you could feel the power flowing through the players,
and other good stuff. This is what I suspect happened approximately -425
Gregorian. Of course, to save others that are watching the effort, I was
not there and I cannot prove it. But I can read, and I can read in
context.
>> Beyond a reasonable doubt, Yahweh was not the god of Judeo and
>> this is verified in Psalms. �What it means to the casual reader who
>> bothers to try to study the history and find the truth of the matter
>> as much as possible, they are reading the makings of a national epic.
>
> Who was the god(s) of Judeo?
Oddly enough, in the time of Psalms, �l. & his council was in session, a
council referred to as the elohim. But that might take more study and
time than you can afford. The information is readily available. Once
you find out where it had been hidden and how it was covered up. But
this takes time, a luxury for some of us.
>>�In
>> epic, that pretty much parallels all the other national epics of the
>> ancient Mediterranean basin, for they shared common knowledge. �There
>> a
> re
>> those acclaimed ancient Judea was an isolated community. �Obviously
>> thi
> s
>> is incorrect. �We know that the original god will supposedly so weak
>> th
> at
>> he had to go and Bryant a follower.
>
> Which is very useful if one (or one's hero) has committed genocide and
> needs a god to blame for it.
A rather astute observation on your part. But genocide was justified in
the taking of the land. You killed off the males in order to stave off
any future rebellion and kept the females for brood mares, as well as
household help. There was a practical reason for it, wrong by today's
standards, right by their. The Assyrians practiced it as well, but with
a different technique. They would take the elite from conquered
territories, move them within the boundaries of their kingdom, and split
them up to where they could not form a community of their own, but had to
be assimilated by the population. They were now in. Effectively, this
killed them off and removed the 10 lost Tribes of Israel from history.
snips
>> The evolution of monotheism within the Judaic tradition is based on
>> various things, none of which are unique to them. �He gives every
>> appearance of an elite portion of society, the priesthood of various
>> gods, or mercantile class, the indolent wealthy [who always seemed
>> the way to stir up shit that sounds good on paper but does not fly
>> well by light of day] or even a fearless leader needs to consolidate
>> his power and right to rule over others.
>
> I'm not following you on anything in this paragraph. Would you mind
> expanding on these concepts please? Thanks.
Not sure I can, it's all based on personal observation. First of all, we
have a major problem in a new society being formed within an older
society. The reasons for that are unknown to a large degree. What we do
know about humans is when they are unhappy here, they will go there. And
when life gets too rough, they will turn to the gods in the majority of
cases.
Here we have a population that has all appearances of being derived from
various nomads, as well as refugees from the territory known as Israel.
They are among a population that has more gods than you can count, they
have gods for everything. If you're going to control them, and if you
are among the elite you want to do this, how are you going to do this.
It's going to take time, there is no way you are going to substitute a
god, subsume every other god & goddesses attributes, over night. We are
talking a time span that will probably exceed 10 to 20 generations. In
the first place, you have to let the memory of your ancestors were
following those gods to disappear from the common memory. You are going
to have to start a substitution process, and by the way, the gods name at
this point is not important, slowly and not among the general population.
Every indication of the construction of the Temple & Jewish worship
follows those guidelines.
An oddity I have encountered. When I have seen various sketches of the
primary all for all the Temple in Jerusalem, is that an altar to a moon
god. Again, without a study of mythology, the average person would be
totally unaware of this. Which leads to a question, did this temple
already exist and was the entire population, followers of Sin? Quite
possible.
We know that among the public, there was no one primary god until at
least the time of Chronicles. At this time, the last goddess is gone,
and no one is complaining about Ahsherah anymore. So we have from the
beginning of the settling of the high lands until when? I've seen
various timelines for the writing of Chronicles, but they were all based
on xians sites and interpolations.
We are talking of at least a thousand years.
We now turn our attention to what was going on around this forming
population. Other city states were prospering. During this era, there
have been droughts like everywhere else. The high lands was especially
susceptible to such lack of rain, because it was becoming agricultural.
No rain, no grain, no livestock. Farmer can't pay his taxes. Not good
for the elite. Even harder on the farmer. So what is the farmer to do?
Back then, he found a god that would take care of him. �l was not a god
of rain, never was one of his attributes. Fertility yes, rain no. Hence
we get the introduction of Ba'al into Jewish society. For the Temple
people, this is not going to work, and they are going to scream about it.
How do you get him out of the picture, well, you can claim your god beat
him up, but what about his attributes? Your god doesn't have those. Or
rather, your god does not have those yet. I believe it's in Hosea, where
Yahweh had played Ba'al. If you believe that that is. I use the JPS for
my source material.
What happens is, the Temple starts absorbing the attributes of the other
gods. By applying them to their god. There is nothing unique about
Yahweh when one studies the pantheons of the ancient Canaanite society.
There's not one unique tribute or saying associated with him. This is
very odd if he is the original head knocker, but not if he is a johnny
come lately that has been promoted to head god.
So what we have is the assimilation of the attributes of all the gods of
the pantheons of Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Ur and any other society they were
aware of into their god. Officially, Judea was monotheistic for quite
some time, unofficially, nothing could have been further from the truth.
How do we know this, well that's a fair dinkum question guv.
Figurines. What the hell are those. Exactly what you think they are,
though nowhere near as cute or well made as today's dolls.
When you go through archaeological sites, and you find very small tablets
of clay that have humanlike figures on them, it makes you curious, who
were these figures, why are they at this location, what purpose do they
fill, why only found in this strata & not another one? And that's just
for starters. I would refer you to a book I have already mentioned.
Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel
Additionally, so you can understand the actual importance of these
things, might I refer you to another book called
The Religions of Ancient Israel
Warning, extremely dry book, it's meant for academians and you are
subject to go to sleep in the middle of the most exciting chapters.
What these books will do for you is explain why these figurines are
important, how those conclusions were arrived at, and what does it
reflect in the way of actual history. It's not quite as pretty as the
Hebrew Bible makes it.
snip
>> rather large influx. �Combine that fact with the claim that fact that
>> you're on your way to the high lands of Judea, and you are going to
>> take those lands by conquest, it's a perfect marriage. �A storyteller
>> could ask for no more.
>
> How does that fit in with Iron Age dynasties such a the Omride?
They are later in the mythology, they are part of the so-called breakup
of the golden age or the United monarchy. I have to refer to it as the
so-called United monarchy because archaeology does not support the claim.
Archaeology does not care one way or the other what any ancient society
did or why they did it. And like the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament's,
there are those that will select one portion, one example, where
archaeology concurs with the Hebrew Bible and declare the whole thing
correct. One of these is the so-called cities that were supposed to have
existed at the time of Judea, when they could not have. But take a very
small example, Solomon.
One of the most famous heroes of the Jewish population. But was he
anything like described in the Hebrew Bible. Using the evidence from
archaeological findings, no. The famous stables at Meggido, they're not
his. How do we know this, because strata located above that particular
layer of debris is from a later era. If they date it to approximately -
1200 Gregorian, and the strata above it is dated to 1000 Gregorian, there
is a rather obvious problem.
There are those that claim the Solomonic gate is evidence of a United
monarchy. No, it's evidence of a design that worked well for the people
that were using it. It doesn't work well, you don't do it. Those things
are expensive in labor and money.
And those are the easy ones. We have no indication of any United
Monarchy, because we lack the evidence for a level of administration of
the monarchy would have required. Remember, we are dealing with a time
there were messengers were not anything near quick, unless they were in
the same room to start with. This requires administrative centers, which
are not necessarily large towns. We cannot find such evidence. By we, I
mean the people doing the work and those that read, what they have found.
We could find no evidence of a large standing army, those things are
expensive, and quite famous for leaving evidence behind themselves.
Strategic fortifications, worn-out equipment, evidence of battle,
evidence of large movements of grain to feed them, and this is all
missing. The conclusion is, but there may well have been a David who had
some standing within the Jewish community at that time. But was he a
warlord, a chieftain, or a wealthy merchant with a private bodyguard of
his own? There is not enough evidence for him to start with to cipher
that one out.
Darn, this is long-winded, but you have some rather interesting
questions.
So there is no reason to suppose that Israel provided the wealth for
Judea, but there is reason to suppose a claim was made for political
purposes.
snip
>> Then we get to the problem of Omni-sentience, which obviously this
>> particular god lacked or it would have would have foreseen the
>> unworthiness [self proclaimed] of its followers.
>
> Or the good king - bad king / good people - bad people cycle describes
A common trope in the ancient Mediterranean basin. And not to be
considered an unusual event. We are dealing with humans, and how they
are trying to make sense of the world, a world that does not always play
nice. An answer if you will, how come bad things happen to good people
and bad people have things happen to them?
> a human point of view specifically how each supported one sect or
> religious faction. Those who do good things for my temple will go
> down in my history as being good, pleasing god and so on. Favor my
> competition and - well you are evil.
That pretty much sums up any organized mythology I have ever encountered.
It's also extremely human. And last time I looked, in spite of the
claims of a few, I are one.
>> No, the Decalogue as claimed by the revealed down to the desert
>> followers is not the only one. �Nor is it a covenant with the people.
>> �They had nothing to say about it, and they were not involved in the
>> decision- making.
>
> I've heard it said (I lack the background to verify myself) that Deut
> reads like an Assyrian contract between overlord and subject.
I too lack that background in detail. But yes, I would not be surprised
to find parallels throughout it. But do recall, Duet: is known to have
been written after the return from the Babylonian vacation. It's also
one of the most highly redacted books within the Hebrew Bible anthology.
What that means in practicality, they wrote what they wanted. And where
would they have been exposed to Assyrian contracts? During that
Babylonian vacation. After all, Babylon absorbed Syria without its
consent, and that included its laws, as well as its culture.
>> So even though we agree that xianity, Judaism, and Islam, incorrectly
>> declare the Decalogue Exodus 20 as the word of a particular god, a
>> god that favors them above all others, we cannot agree on the
>> validity if he support that position.
>
> [...]
>> So there we have it, reasons why I cannot accept the Decalogue as a
>> valid covenant, nor set of instructions to live by. �Even though some
>> of thos
> e
>> instructions are pertinent to a society that wants to remain
>> together, is basically a pretension that a god would inform you
>> [actually, the ancient founders of Judea.] �Of what you have to do in
>> order to have a perfect society. �It wasn't perfect, nor is any
>> society perfect for more reason
> s
>> than it will do to get into on Usenet.
> [...]
That was a bit long-winded, and I must apologize to the audience.
However, I tried to answer questions as accurately and fully as possible.
And sometimes I have to say, I don't know. But I know a librarian, and I
know tht librarian will do her darndest to make sure I can learn. It's
just not fair, so many books, so little time and eyes that wear out.
walksalone, who is rather enjoying himself. But does have trivial and
unimportant things to attend to. Maybe tomorrow, if this continues.
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question,
'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But,
conscience
asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must
take
a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must
take
it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. -Martin Luther
King, Jr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew. in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>Aaron wrote:
>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>> Aaron wrote:
>>>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron wrote:
>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>> > Great Sage Itchy wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>>>> >> Christian.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>>>>>> opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>>>>>> "anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>>>>>> without hating people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
>>>>>>Biblical commandment is being broken.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Simply recall what happened to Adam and Eve for their not doing what
>>>> GOD wanted, which at the time was definitely not a written Biblical
>>>> commandment:
>>>>
>>> They violated one of the two Commandments that they were given.
>>
>>"Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was not a
>>written Biblical commandment.
>
>It was a commandment given directly by God.
Therefore, "not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
Biblical commandment is being broken."
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly contradict yourself thereby showing you are guided
by the spirit of error (self) instead of the Holy Spirit.
This does explain why you are unable to publicly say "Jesus is LORD."
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
Bottom line concering you and other faux christians:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BottomLine
May GOD soften your heart, Aaron, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
Aaron
>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:46:48 -0400, Aaron <an...@home.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:57:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:52:44 -0400, Aaron <an...@home.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:41:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:10:45 -0700, Great Sage Itchy
>>>>><it...@itchyandscratchy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you hate anyone or anything in this world, you are not yet a real
>>>>>>Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. All people, including Christians, are sinners. Heb 4:15.
>>>>
>>>>There are 613 Commandments in the Bible. A person has many
>>>>opportunities to be a sinner without hatred. On the other hand,
>>>>"anything" includes evil. A true follower of God can hate evil
>>>>without hating people.
>>>
>>>Hatred is not necessary. Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and
>>>sloth are capital sins. Allowing these to lead one to self value over others is
>>>a mortal sin.
>
>>No, these are not all sins though they are all poor character traits
>>and can lead to sin.
>
>That's what I said. When one is consumed by these to the detriment of all,
>especially our loved ones, they become mortally corruptive.
I guess that is what you meant. I was using a narrower definition of
"sin" specifically refering to a violation of any of the 613
Commandments in the Bible.
>
>> the a Catholic church made up the "Seven Deadly
>>Sins" in a time whem most Catholics were illiterate. Since 613 was
>>too much for most to remember a list of seven things that lead to
>>committing most sins was formulated.
>
>The 613 you reference are physical laws for Jews. The capital sins impact
>others.
That is not true.
The Bible specifically states many times that there is one law for the
Jew and the gentile believer in God. These laws are not all
"physical" as you call them, but they do all come from God. "Good"
and "moral" are terms for obeying God; "evil and "immoral" are terms
for disobeying God. Therefore all of the 613 Commandments found in
the Bible are "moral laws."
The "capital sins" are just a Catholic myth. Pride, gluttony and
sloth are not forbidden by God, even though the Jewish rabbis of the
talmud taught against these traits on the grounds that they could lead
to sin. I am not advocating pride, gluttony and sloth, just staing
that God did not forbid them. Lust is not forbidden either, but it is
regulated; a man may lust after his wife all he wants. She might even
lust back. Anger is not a sin at all, but hatred is and anger can
lead to hatred. I am not sure if you have some difference between
"covetousness" and "envy" that is not strictly speaking in the
dictionary. In the usage to which i am familiar, envy is a milder
form of covetousness. So, I am not sure where you are drawing a line.
>
>>>>By the way: Hebrews 4:15 does not say that all humanbeings are
>>>>sinners; it says that Messiah was tempted but did not sin.
>>>
>>>Heb 4:15 says Jesus was man **in every way** but did not sin. We, otoh, are
>>>sinners day in and day out, in our words and our thoughts, in what we do and
>>>don't do.
>
>>That is just Roman Catholic Mythology used to scare the ignorant
>>masses into giving the church money back when they sold indulgences.
>
>And Christianity is the corrective move to the faith that chose the golden calf
>over God.
No, He did not come for the Egyptians who journeyed with Israel, or
for Israelites who rejected Judaism.
Messiah did spend three and one half years Teaching the Torah and
making judgements on areas where the two main groups of Pharisees
disagreed.
>
>>>> The Bible
>>>>lists at least four people who did not sin Enoch and Avraham in
>>>>Genesis, and Elishivah and Zecharyah in Luke. As God said in
>>>>Deiteronomy 30:10-14, it is possible, even easy for people to live
>>>>without sin. People simply choose to do evil and choose to tempt
>>>>others to do evil also.
>
>>>If it's Deuteronomy, then works of the hand is the criteria. With Christ, it
>>>became works of the heart, and mankind is a serious failure there.
>
>>There was no change in criteria. In Matthew 5 and 6 (Sermon on the
>>Mount), Messiah added the requirement of Kavanah (the Jewish doctrine
>>that a person's actions must be motivated by love for God or love for
>>humanity to have any moral value).
>
>Jesus specifically declared the works of the law flawed and no more. Heb
>8:7-13.
That is not true at all. In Matthew 5:17-19, Messiah said that His
followers must obey all 613 Commandments until "Heaven and earth are
destroyed, and everything has happened." Neither of these has
happened. In Matthew 7:21-23, Messiah said that those who call upon
His name for salvation but act against the Commandments are damned
even though they called upon Him for salvation. this makes sence
because they are rejecting Him as an authority and attempting to use
Him rather than love and obey Him.
In Hebrews 8:7-13, Rabbi Shaul (a. k. a.: "Paul") states that through
Yshu`a the prophesy of a Renewed Covenant WILL be accomplished, but
the original prophecy also requires that all Jews be returned to
israel by God and never dispersed again. Since there are Jews living
outside of Israel, this cannot have happened yet. Also, the prophecy
states that all of the people will instinctively know and love the 613
Commandments ans obey them all. Duke, while I disagree with you on
some things, I believe that there are many people in the Catholic
church who are saved, but they do not know or obey the Commandments.
>
>> So, in reality, Messiah made the
>>Law more difficult to follow since mechanical actions done without
>>preoper motivations don't count.
>
>Not walking 1 mile on the sabbath or not eating pork are no more.
Getting back to knowing the Commandments: the prohibition against
walkinf more than one mile on Sabbath is a chumrah not a mitzvah (it
is man-made and not one of the 613 Commandments). So. if you are
saved, there has been no "new Covenant."
Also it is still forbidden for people who love God to eat pork.
>
>> This was not much of a change though
>>since most Jews already believed this from reading the Torah (the
>>first five books of the Bible). Obviously, Messiah, Who was without
>>sin, did not violate any of God's Commandments. Therefore He did not
>>sin by anulling any of the Commandments since that is forbidden in
>>Deuteronomy 4:2.
>
>He made specific moves to violate the Levi laws. He healed on the sabbath, etc.
You do not seem to know the Commandments. First, there are no "Levi
laws." There are commandments that only Levites and Kohanim (Priests)
are required to perform.
In Messiah's time there were two interpretations concerning healing or
rendering medical assistance on Sabbath. The majoritiy of the
Pharisees believed that it is required to render medical assistance
when needed even on Sabbath; the minority believed that it was
forbidden to do anything which constitutes employment even if services
are rendered free of charge. The belief that giving medical
assistance is required is based on the exact wording of the original
Hebrew text of Exodus. Messiah sided with the majority (Beyt Hillel)
and proved his point with a miraculous healing.
>
>>>> The myth that all people must sin has lead many people into sin.
>>>> There are entire chruches and denominations
>>>>that make a point of leading people into arrogant remorseless sin
>>>>which the Bible calls "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
>
>>>Can you describe "blasphemy against the HS?
>
>>I prefer to allow Rabbi Shaul (Paul) to do so.
>
>That's fine.
>
>>In Hebrew 10:26-29, he wrote that the violation of any of the 613
>>commandments that is done in a high handed/remorseless manner after
>>accepting Messiah is unforgivable and blasphemy against the Holy
>>Spirit. This verse also harmonized Matthew 12:30-32 (also Mark
>>3:28&29) with Numbers 15:30&31, which uses the same definition but
>>calls the act "blasphemy against YHVH." If you choose to cross
>>reference with Leviticus, you will see that the difference between a
>>Guilt (knowing violation of a Commandment) and the unforgivable sin is
>>remorse. Also, that remorse must come before the sinner is caught and
>>brought to judgement. In the case of being "caught" by God, it cannot
>>be Him knowing what you did since He knows all your actions before
>>your birth; therefore, it must mean being brought to judgement. We
>>are brought to judgement after we die, so as long as we live, we can
>>still repent and be forgiven.
>
>Good explanation. But he failed to mention 2 things in Heb 10 - the new
>command of John 13:34, and the completion of the old covenant in Heb 8. And
>that's where the 7 capital sins come from.
You are in error. John 13:34 is a command not a Commandment. A
Commandment is applicable throughout the ages whereas a command is a
one time order. The command in John 13:34 was directed towards the
eleven Talmidim (Disciples) who remained after Yhudah ish Kiriot left
the Concluding Meal / Passover Seder. As stated above and as
demonstrated by your own words, Rabbi Sahaul's identification of
Yshu`a as the driving force in accomplishing the Prophecy of jeremiah
31 in no way indicates that it has happened yet, and in no way
indicates that the commandments would be abolished or that Messiah
would commit sin. In Deuteronomy 4:2, God forbids anyone from
abolishing any of the Commandments, and God never sins.
>
>All that aside, we call the unforgivable sin as "dying still professing we are
>the equal of God", pretty much the same Paul said.
You may call it whatever you like, but that does not change the fact
that Paul wrote that the violation of any one of the 613 done
arrogantly (like a pope thinking he has the authority to abolish any
of the 613 Commandments) is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
>
>>The problem with these denominations is that they teach people not to
>>feel remorse for their evil actions. Some use the Satanic doctrine of
>>Antinomianism claiming that people no longer need to obey God. (I
>>used "Satanic" there because in Second Thessalonians, Chapter Two,
>>Rabbi Shaul stated that this theology is the distinguishing mark of
>>the anti-christ.
>
>Did you know that Rabbi Shaul became a Christian?
According to the Bible, he never became a Christian. This makes sence
because there was no Christianity in his time, just Messianic Judaism.
The Roman Catholic Church was invented in 325CE by combining Messianic
Jewish beliefs with Bablylonian Mithraism, and the heresies of Marcion
and Origen both of who had been excommunicated for the theologies that
they contributed to the new religion.
>
>The Dukester, American-American
>*****
Dr. House
Your answer is very detailed (thank you) and I don't have time to
respond to all of it in one sitting so I'll make some quick comments
and perhaps add more in a follow up.
[...]
> And again, the answer is your findings may not equal mine.
> Would you mind if I quit adding that disclaimer?
Of course. Some people simply put "YMMV" to convey that. Whatever
works for you is fine with me.
[...]
> The foreign kings, some say Shepherd Kings, and I don't know which if
> either is correct, did exist. That is not optional. Just as the Sea
> people existed, and they were extremely destructive because they took out
> the entire Mediterranean basin civilization with the exception of Egypt.
> & the time period is somewhat similar in that it overlaps. My suspicion,
> and I cannot find the evidence, or at least not if it's good enough to
> say, AH!!!, I gotcha, is that the Hykoss was the result of Egypt allowing
> nomads to water their flocks and till land in the delta region of the
> Nile. Nomads do not like to move their flocks around, this causes weight
> loss, tougher meat, and is a pain in the ass. Given enough time, a
> population could build up and take over the delta. For starters. But
> the intrusion of the Judaic patriarchs into Egyptian history, lacks
> authenticity as well as not being that believable if you understand
> Egyptian history. Very much.
I'm considering it more as a source for oral tradition. There were
various disasters and political conflicts in that time period. They
become part of oral tradition. They get spun and exaggerated over the
centuries and then they get written down.
> The pharaohs we're not above using
> somebody else to do their work, and that would include those from other
> lands. They were very careful about how much power those people got,
> because they could be dethroned if the power got out of hand. And if you
> can as well as other nations history does have cases where, subordinates
> took over the leadership. I would have to dig in my notes, and, right
> now. Time is not that free.
> What we have in the case of Moses is, to those that want to study in
> depth, the fabrication. It requires a stretch of the imagination is out
> of this world.
> We start out with 12 minor tribes, for each patriarchs would have held
> leadership of a group that one could call a tribe, that is it for only
> four generations at most, grew to a population of almost 2 million. When
> we add to that the disappearance of those 2 million from the population
> and the destruction of the Egyptian army without anybody else in the
> world noticing and plundering Egypt. When it was without leadership,
> well, let's just say my imagination is not that fertile.
In Numbers Ch 1 all the people are counted. Not 'one was missed' and
yet the tallies for 11 tribes are all multiples of 100, the other
tribe of course having exactly 50 extra men. I'm not buying that.
However the culture did seem to have a tendency to keep track of oral
genealogies. I'm not saying the final product was accurate. Rather
I'm looking for a source of the oral traditions. Did they pull
numbers out of thin air or could they have applied crude and
inaccurate math to ancient records they did not properly understand?
I realize I have wondered past the point where anything is known.
[...]
> >> This
> >> creates two problems. First of all, why could a god and not prevent
> >> those tablets from having been broken.
>
> > Only one man knew what was on those tablets - the one who broke them.
>
> This makes a presupposition I'm not willing to grant. It requires the
> existence of two individuals, that I have no reason to believe ever
> existed. The god, and Moses.
Actually, only one. Existence of a diety is not required.
Furthermore the name of the man does not need to be "Moses" or
anything like Moses. The only presupposition is that a real dictator/
leader claimed to get something from a deity and was about to share it
with the tribe but instead destroyed it. This event then was
preserved in oral traditions which may have altered the details over
time.
> But for the discussion, would he have known. Remember, god wrote those
> instructions, and what language did god speak?
Whatever language the leader needed the deity to speak, of course. If
the broken tablet story is based on truth then I would guess the
writing was in the people's language. If it were in a spiritual
language then the leader could make it up as he went along.
> We don't know, the
> assumption is Hebrew, strangely enough. But assumptions are known to
> have a high error rate and not be a good basis for making policy.
Fair enough. It's hard to know the language if we don't know which
people the tradition started with.
> > While anger seems like the natural cover story after the fact wouldn't
> > it be far more likely that the tablets said the wrong thing? Moses
> > had one set of information when he went up the mountain. On his way
>
> I have to react to what the story claims, but I cannot argue against what
> you just said.
>
> > down he realized there was a new problem. In light of the new
> > information he needed tablets that said something very different so
> > destroy the evidence.
>
> A very feasible conclusion. But again based on two presumptions, I don't
> make.
It doesn't have to be Moses. Sometimes the deeds of a lesser leader
get attributed to someone more famous. And if a leader says god wrote
something that doesn't make it so.
> I've got to quit saying that, you already realize that. But yes,
> you have just described a very strong probability. He went up the
> mountain in order to come back with his pet god. But when he returned,
> the original god was back, the god that would have led them from Egypt to
> start with. Ba'al didn't get involved until they had formed a population
> within the Judean high lands. Does this mean that Moses, or his
> prototype, was from the Kennenite tribe? A very good real possibility.
That's interesting. I will have to look into that.
[...]
> >> Of course, the song and dance invoked by Moses
> >> after he broke the tablets is very impressive, as long as you can
> >> claim it is in the distant past. And part of your national
> >> foundation.
>
> >> The story creates more problems then it solves. When one wants to
> >> take in historical context and try to figure out what it really is
> >> supposed to mean.
>
> > Doesn't it read as a strait forward challenge to a dictator's
> > leadership? We need to make that cow into a sin. Then we need to
> > have the enforcers put down the other faction. Those who submit to
> > the dictator have mercy - those who won't get executed.
>
> Given the society, I don't think so. They were tribal, extremely tribal.
> I myself have tribal blood, and I realize how extreme that can be. The
> survival of the tribe is all. Nothing matters but that survival.
That's something I've never considered before. So in your opinion the
internal bickering, political crack downs and executions described in
Exodus are not consistent with nomadic, tribal life?
[..]
> >> Beyond a reasonable doubt, Yahweh was not the god of Judeo and
> >> this is verified in Psalms. What it means to the casual reader who
> >> bothers to try to study the history and find the truth of the matter
> >> as much as possible, they are reading the makings of a national epic.
>
> > Who was the god(s) of Judeo?
>
> Oddly enough, in the time of Psalms, Él. & his council was in session, a
> council referred to as the elohim. But that might take more study and
> time than you can afford. The information is readily available. Once
> you find out where it had been hidden and how it was covered up. But
> this takes time, a luxury for some of us.
Yup, I will look into it - when I have time. =)
[...]
> >> iWe know that the original god will supposedly so weak
> >> th
> > at
> >> he had to go and Bryant a follower.
>
> > Which is very useful if one (or one's hero) has committed genocide and
> > needs a god to blame for it.
>
> A rather astute observation on your part. But genocide was justified in
> the taking of the land. You killed off the males in order to stave off
> any future rebellion and kept the females for brood mares, as well as
> household help. There was a practical reason for it, wrong by today's
> standards, right by their.
Yes, I believe most successful ancient empires practiced it in one
form or another. They would have taken it for granted.
[...]
I will respond to the rest when I get more time.
Thanks and regards,
House
walksalone
> On Jun 4, 7:56�am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
> Your answer is very detailed (thank you) and I don't have time to
I would not think so. You ask questions that are not easily answered with
a yes or no response. One-liners, rows are supposed to impress others
with the shallowness of their understanding of the question. Detailed is
when I get right down to the color of the robe they were wearing, or the
number of miles between garrisons on the Kings Highway, the one by Darius
the Great. & the canal, man, don't get me started. There are a lot of
things I can get a detailed on, but restrict myself to one line answers
to questions that are serious is a bit foolish where I come from. Not
only my children but my troops would have expected better.
> respond to all of it in one sitting so I'll make some quick comments
> and perhaps add more in a follow up.
I would rather you not even do a follow up until you have considered
entire mess for a day or two. It takes a while for some questions to
percolate through. And then, you will have an idea of where to do your
research and verify or deny what I have said. If you verify, goody. If
you deny and provide the information it provides the basis for your
denial, great. No one, and I do mean no one especially myself, has the
majority of the answer because, we don't know what the hell the question
really is. We have opinions and we have ideas, frequently they are
incorrect.
It would not bother me if you come back in a week's time and said, now
about that part in Moses hair, was it on the left or on the right side?
> [...]
>>�And again, the answer is your findings may not equal mine. �
>> Would you mind if I quit adding that disclaimer?
>
> Of course. Some people simply put "YMMV" to convey that. Whatever
> works for you is fine with me.
In your case, I'm not going to bother because you already understand
this. If we have somebody new join in & attempt to exchange information,
opinions, and questions, then I will repeat one-time. Neither one of us
needs reminded that the other one is speaking their mind based on
information they have and their understanding of that information.
>
> [...]
Snip.
>> the intrusion of the Judaic patriarchs into Egyptian history, lacks
>> authenticity as well as not being that believable if you understand
>> Egyptian history. �Very much.
>
> I'm considering it more as a source for oral tradition. There were
It may be that it's not so much a source of the oral tradition, as its
exploration of what the hell was going on and why things were so mucked
up. During the political upheavals of the time, which led to various
disasters such as the destruction of the city of Hazor, a major
population center in Israel, the entire world was falling apart around
their ears. There's no doubt lead to great confusion on the part of many,
what have we done to deserve this would be a primary question. When you
have a burning question of that caliber and under circumstances similar
to that you will find an answer. It's a human response to overwhelming
conditions. Even my people were not immune to it.
> various disasters and political conflicts in that time period. They
> become part of oral tradition. They get spun and exaggerated over the
> centuries and then they get written down.
No doubt that is a portion of it. A lot of it has to do with when the
Hebrew Bible was written, and first put to paper in approximately -545
Gregorian. The Jewish tribes had been in place for over 1000 years any
weight you want to look at. A golden opportunity to write a national epic
explains the situation you now have. And I believe they took advantage of
it and abused it. But again, neither one of us was there.
snip
>> we add to that the disappearance of those 2 million from the
>> population and the destruction of the Egyptian army without anybody
>> else in the world noticing and plundering Egypt. �When it was without
>> leadership, well, let's just say my imagination is not that fertile.
>
> In Numbers Ch 1 all the people are counted. Not 'one was missed' and
> yet the tallies for 11 tribes are all multiples of 100, the other
> tribe of course having exactly 50 extra men. I'm not buying that.
> However the culture did seem to have a tendency to keep track of oral
> genealogies. I'm not saying the final product was accurate. Rather
> I'm looking for a source of the oral traditions. Did they pull
> numbers out of thin air or could they have applied crude and
> inaccurate math to ancient records they did not properly understand?
> I realize I have wondered past the point where anything is known.
But not past the point where things can be comprehended. No, we do not
know the mathematical system they used, if any. No doubt they had a crude
variation of mathematics in place because, they understood currency. They
knew about portable wealth, jewels, silver, gold, etc. They knew about
wealth, flocks of sheep, land, temple offerings, and such nonsense. So we
know they had to have a means of counting. And it was probably done as
multiples of a man, or base 10 as we think of it today. That's the
easiest way and everybody has their own little calculator built right in.
We find with some frequency the numbers 40 and 70 being used in the
Hebrew Bible, frequently we would find in situations where they don't
make any sense under today's usage of the numbers. But once they were
sacred numbers? That makes it a whole new ballgame. One I would not want
to even try to play.
> [...]
>> >> �This
>> >> creates two problems. �First of all, why could a god and not
>> >> prevent those tablets from having been broken.
>>
>> > Only one man knew what was on those tablets - the one who broke
>> > them.
>>
>> This makes a presupposition I'm not willing to grant. �It requires
>> the existence of two individuals, that I have no reason to believe
>> ever existed. �The god, and Moses.
>
> Actually, only one. Existence of a diety is not required.
Not required I agree, but definitely in this particular myth, mandatory.
It's called an appeal to authority it works on the idea of, this is
strictly a hypothetical claim and situation, I am an authority on ancient
Hebrew customs. You appeal to that authority to support your claim that
such and such an event was a regular occurrence. That creates two
problems which the ancients, we were not aware of because they didn't
think like we do today.
The first one, would I really be an authority. Hell no, but I can play
one on Usenet. It still would not make me an authority, and there you are
citing me. And it just snowballed from there.
Not claiming the authority of a deity, we've a case I said so which among
nomads as well as overpopulated tribal societies does not work. Our
experiment just a little bit better later on.
> Furthermore the name of the man does not need to be "Moses" or
> anything like Moses. The only presupposition is that a real dictator/
Here we run into a number of minor problem that becomes a major problem
would translate into English. What we think of as a dictator could not
have existed back then. Dictators rely on force to reinforce their
decisions and keep their position. This just about requires a standing
military type force. It would not matter if it was a personal group of
bodyguards or a militia type force, is required to back up the claims and
demands of the dictator.
Humans are very strange animals, you put us in a group with at least 25
adult members, and we become unhinged. In cities, villages and such, we
have a military force called the police that it forces the will of
society on anybody that wants to reside there. But in the case of a
nomad, he just packed his stuff up and goes away or else, he kills the
leader and take his place. This is typical of the Middle East in ancient,
and am also certain that may be the case during modern times. The Middle
Eastern male gives a new depth of definition to mocho that the Latinos
cannot even come close to.
> leader claimed to get something from a deity and was about to share it
> with the tribe but instead destroyed it. This event then was
> preserved in oral traditions which may have altered the details over
> time.
You're not going to like this answer. There is no way to know. It's
possible and therefore plausible. But whether or not it's probable is
another question and one I am in no position to answer.
>> But for the discussion, would he have known. �Remember, god wrote
>> those instructions, and what language did god speak? �
>
> Whatever language the leader needed the deity to speak, of course. If
> the broken tablet story is based on truth then I would guess the
And there is part of the problem, if your tribe speaks one dialect & mine
speaks another, which language will it use. I for one would not know but
I suspect as you do, that whoever made the claim that the deity was
talking to them, that is the language the deity would use. Never mind
that your tribal population is 12 people, children & all. Never mind the
remainder of the tribes you are trying to convince number in the
thousands, the deity must speak your language. How else would you
convince anybody that you knew what it was saying?
> writing was in the people's language. If it were in a spiritual
> language then the leader could make it up as he went along.
Somewhat like the televangelists of today do?
>> We don't know, the
>> assumption is Hebrew, strangely enough. �But assumptions are known to
>> have a high error rate and not be a good basis for making policy.
>
> Fair enough. It's hard to know the language if we don't know which
> people the tradition started with.
Hard, I would say impossible.
>> > While anger seems like the natural cover story after the fact
>> > wouldn't it be far more likely that the tablets said the wrong
>> > thing? �Moses had one set of information when he went up the
>> > mountain. �On his way
>>
>> I have to react to what the story claims, but I cannot argue against
>> what you just said.
>>
>> > down he realized there was a new problem. �In light of the new
>> > information he needed tablets that said something very different so
>> > destroy the evidence.
>>
>> A very feasible conclusion. �But again based on two presumptions, I
>> don
> 't
>> make.
>
> It doesn't have to be Moses. Sometimes the deeds of a lesser leader
But Moses was in the story, and yes, I admit that Alf of the hairy lip
would have done just as well for a hero.
> get attributed to someone more famous. And if a leader says god wrote
> something that doesn't make it so.
That's exactly what happened in the case of the Greek test was, those
four books known as Gospels. We don't know who wrote they are attributed
to people that supposedly would have been famous had they existed.
Because historical and not mythological.
>> �I've got to quit saying that, you already realize that. �But yes,
>> you have just described a very strong probability. �He went up the
>> mountain in order to come back with his pet god. �But when he
>> returned, the original god was back, the god that would have led them
>> from Egypt to start with. �Ba'al didn't get involved until they had
>> formed a populati
> on
>> within the Judean high lands. �Does this mean that Moses, or his
>> prototype, was from the Kennenite tribe? �A very good real
>> possibility.
>
> That's interesting. I will have to look into that.
Good luck, that is a very devious tale to unravel. But there is another
general information out there on on the Web itself to give you a good
start. You might want to start with the epic of Ba'al. Then you get to
follow the bouncing ball and noticed it was in the Hebrew Bible, the
fussing starts after the so-called exodus. Not an easy one to unravel.
Possibly if you study or inquire about the god called Dagon you can find
more because, he happens to be that god's son. Now what is that phrase,
over what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive? The
Hebrew Bible is definitely proof of that. But man, what a story.
> [...]
>> >> Of course, the song and dance invoked by Moses
>> >> after he broke the tablets is very impressive, as long as you can
>> >> claim it is in the distant past. �And part of your national
>> >> foundation.
>>
>> >> The story creates more problems then it solves. �When one wants to
>> >> take in historical context and try to figure out what it really is
>> >> supposed to mean. �
>>
>> > Doesn't it read as a strait forward challenge to a dictator's
>> > leadership? �We need to make that cow into a sin. �Then we need to
>> > have the enforcers put down the other faction. �Those who submit to
>> > the dictator have mercy - those who won't get executed.
>>
>> Given the society, I don't think so. �They were tribal, extremely
>> triba
> l. �
>> I myself have tribal blood, and I realize how extreme that can be.
>> �The survival of the tribe is all. �Nothing matters but that
>> survival.
>
> That's something I've never considered before. So in your opinion the
Why should you have? According to the Hebrew Bible, there was a solid
political and theological front as well as a mutual admiration society
going on. Perfectly understandable when written as a national epic and
read as a national epic. As a creation story, the creation story of a God
and its relationship with a particular group of people, it doesn't hold
up so well. But under the trope of a national epic, it does indeed.
> internal bickering, political crack downs and executions described in
> Exodus are not consistent with nomadic, tribal life?
Extremely so as near as I can tell when personalities such as those found
in the Middle East are involved. Nomadic groups of over 25 adults have a
tendency to fall apart. Personality clashes, I want that middle, you want
the other one and the tribe has to sit there and wait for us to make a
decision which makes absolutely nobody happy. Many thanks get involved.
In the case of my people, we had an easy solution. They went their way
and we went ours. With no animosity. Why no animosity, the Americas were
large enough that we were not in direct competition for the same
resources. This was not true in the Judean high lands.
> [..]
>> >> Beyond a reasonable doubt, Yahweh was not the god of Judeo and
>> >> this is verified in Psalms. �What it means to the casual reader
>> >> who bothers to try to study the history and find the truth of the
>> >> matter as much as possible, they are reading the makings of a
>> >> national epic.
>>
>> > Who was the god(s) of Judeo?
>>
>> Oddly enough, in the time of Psalms, �l. �& his council was in sessio
> n, a
>> council referred to as the elohim. �But that might take more study
>> and time than you can afford. �The information is readily available.
>> �Onc
> e
>> you find out where it had been hidden and how it was covered up. �But
>> this takes time, a luxury for some of us.
>
> Yup, I will look into it - when I have time. =)
I take it I should not expect a response within the next five minutes? I
would refer to that as a good call on your part.
> [...]
>> >> iWe know that the original god will supposedly so weak
>> >> th
>> > at
>> >> he had to go and Bryant a follower.
>>
>> > Which is very useful if one (or one's hero) has committed genocide
>> > and needs a god to blame for it.
>>
>> A rather astute observation on your part. �But genocide was justified
>> i
> n
>> the taking of the land. �You killed off the males in order to stave
>> off any future rebellion and kept the females for brood mares, as
>> well as household help. �There was a practical reason for it, wrong
>> by today's standards, right by their.
>
> Yes, I believe most successful ancient empires practiced it in one
> form or another. They would have taken it for granted.
Even modern societies practice genocide, only now we call it being
assimilated into the primary population. End result, no more problems
from those pesky original owners of the land. Continent immaterial. It's
nowhere near as violent as physical genocide.
> [...]
> I will respond to the rest when I get more time.
>
> Thanks and regards,
There's nothing there to really respond to, but there is stuff to
consider and question. I do not have all the answers as we both know, nor
will I pretend to. All I can do and will do is present information that I
have, and on occasion the sources of that information. After that, you
can run with it as you wish because I do not expect a response to every
point I raise question I answer. This is Usenet, not life. Even though
sometimes, I have to wonder about it. Just so many interesting
conversations are possible for me to follow at one time. It's held when
you are no longer 17, but it's the price we pay for being alive. And I
can't say as how I would want it to be otherwise. After all, even all my
orgies get old after a while. Yet life is still interesting.
> House
walksalone who's been enjoying the hell out of today. And will do his
best to provide answers that make sense within the historical context the
questions refer to. And if I meander, feel free to pop me upside the head
and remind me that wasn't the question, or even worse, the answer was not
very clear.
A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a
superstition. -Jose Bergamin, author (1895-1983)
<Kelly>
I am not a big fan of Andrew's posts, but the following information is
available and easily found online at his state's board of medical
examiner's website:
License 040347
Status: Active
Name: CHUNG, ANDREW BEN-HUA
Issue / Expiration Dates: Issue Date: 08/03/1995 Expiration Date:
07/31/2011
Specialty: Cardiovascular Disease/Cardiology
Public Board Orders: None
Physician Profile: More information can be found at: http://www.heartmdphd.com
So, as far as him being a licensed MD...
...if the guy posting is physician listed above, then he is.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>I am not a big fan of Andrew's posts...
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
fans or followers.
> ... but the following information is
>available and easily found online at his state's board of medical
>examiner's website:
>
>License 040347
>Status: Active
>Name: CHUNG, ANDREW BEN-HUA
>Issue / Expiration Dates: Issue Date: 08/03/1995 Expiration Date:
>07/31/2011
>Specialty: Cardiovascular Disease/Cardiology
>Public Board Orders: None
>Physician Profile: More information can be found at: http://www.heartmdphd.com
>
>So, as far as him being a licensed MD...
>
>...if the guy posting is physician listed above, then he is.
This does mean all who have been writing otherwise have been guilty of
bearing false witness, which is sin (something that GOD does not want)
according to what is written in the Bible.
Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
<Kelly>
wrote:
> <Kelly> wrote:
>
> >I am not a big fan of Andrew's posts...
>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
> fans or followers.
Get a grip, Andrew. I didn't say word one about being one of *your*
fans, I specifically said "I am not a big fan of [your] posts".
> > ... but the following information is
> >available and easily found online at his state's board of medical
> >examiner's website:
>
> >License 040347
> >Status: Active
> >Name: CHUNG, ANDREW BEN-HUA
> >Issue / Expiration Dates: Issue Date: 08/03/1995 Expiration Date:
> >07/31/2011
> >Specialty: Cardiovascular Disease/Cardiology
> >Public Board Orders: None
> >Physician Profile: More information can be found at:http://www.heartmdphd.com
>
> >So, as far as him being a licensed MD...
>
> >...if the guy posting is physician listed above, then he is.
> This does mean all who have been writing otherwise have been guilty of
> bearing false witness, which is sin (something that GOD does not want)
> according to what is written in the Bible.
Not if they are neither Christian nor Jew. You can't hold non-
believers to the same standard as believers. It's God's job to sort
everyone out, not yours.
> Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
Yep. And I've been doing so for 34 years, thanks.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> <Kelly> wrote:
>>
>> >I am not a big fan of Andrew's posts...
>>
>> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
>> fans or followers.
>
>Get a grip, Andrew. I didn't say word one about being one of *your*
>fans, I specifically said "I am not a big fan of [your] posts".
Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
this text-based medium known as Usenet.
>> > ... but the following information is
>> >available and easily found online at his state's board of medical
>> >examiner's website:
>>
>> >License �040347
>> >Status: Active
>> >Name: CHUNG, ANDREW BEN-HUA
>> >Issue / Expiration Dates: Issue Date: 08/03/1995 �Expiration Date:
>> >07/31/2011
>> >Specialty: Cardiovascular Disease/Cardiology
>> >Public Board Orders: None
>> >Physician Profile: More information can be found at:http://www.heartmdphd.com
>>
>> >So, as far as him being a licensed MD...
>>
>> >...if the guy posting is physician listed above, then he is.
>
>> This does mean all who have been writing otherwise have been guilty of
>> bearing false witness, which is sin (something that GOD does not want)
>> according to what is written in the Bible.
>
> Not if they are neither Christian nor Jew.
The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
Christian (either Jew or gentile).
> You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
Good is that which GOD wants:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/good
> It's God's job to sort
> everyone out, not yours.
"GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
fans or followers."
>> Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>
>Yep. And I've been doing so for 34 years, thanks.
Then please allow me to hear this via voicemail at the number listed
at the bottom of the following web site:
Ted L
> Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and
> sloth are capital sins. Allowing these to lead one to self value over others is
> a mortal sin.
"Capitol sin"
"Mortal sin"
A classification system made-up by the harlot of seven hills.
"Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to
the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the
guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced
the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the
Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword,
vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period
most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages." The kings of
the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be
trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair,
as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal
persecution first burst upon the Waldenses in France."
Account continues in Chapter 4 of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, available
online.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> >> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
> >> fans or followers.
> >Get a grip, Andrew. I didn't say word one about being one of *your*
> >fans, I specifically said "I am not a big fan of [your] posts".
> Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
> this text-based medium known as Usenet.
Who's "we"?
> >> This does mean all who have been writing otherwise have been guilty of
> >> bearing false witness, which is sin (something that GOD does not want)
> >> according to what is written in the Bible.
> > Not if they are neither Christian nor Jew.
> The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
> Christian (either Jew or gentile).
It was an allegory, but a fig tree is still not a human being.
> > You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
> GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
No - God is not a man that He should lie. His standards are quite
clear in the Bible - for Jew and Gentile (actual and figurative)
alike.
> > It's God's job to sort
> > everyone out, not yours.
> "GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
> fans or followers."
Fine. Your purpose here is to inform. It's still God's job alone to
sort everyone out and separate the sheep from the goats - not yours.
> >> Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
> >Yep. And I've been doing so for 34 years, thanks.
> Then please allow me to hear this via voicemail at the number listed
> at the bottom of the following web site:
Uh...you've got to be kidding. No - sorry. I don't leave voicemails
to people I don't know and have never seen saying, "Jesus is Lord".
Seeing that I have written here "Jesus is Lord" - will have to suffice
(although I can't possibly imagine why you think if you hear me say it
or read it or if I do it at all makes any difference to you. God
knows my heart - and that I gave it to Christ 34 years ago. You
aren't in the equation.
guardian Snow
> > > You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
> > GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
>
> No - God is not a man that He should lie. His standards are quite
> clear in the Bible - for Jew and Gentile (actual and figurative)
> alike.
You are very correct Kelly:)
Num 23:19 El is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath
he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Mat 12:18 Behold my SERVANT, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom
my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall
shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He bore witness of Me. You have
neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and does not
come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall
prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous SERVANT justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.
Joh 12:44 Then יהושע cried out and said, “He who believes in Me,
believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father WHICH SENT
ME, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that HIS COMMANDMENT IS EVERLASTING LIFE:
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
speak.
Mar 9:37 “Whoever receives one of such little children in My Name
receives Me. And whoever receives Me, RECEIVES ME NOT, but the One WHO
SENT ME.”
Joh 7:28 יהושע therefore cried out in the Set-apart Place, teaching
and saying, “You both know Me, and you know where I am from. And I
have NOT COME OF MYSELF, but HE WHO SENT ME is true, whom YOU DO NOT
KNOW.
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
Joh 5:31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
Joh 5:46 “For if you believed Mosheh, you would have believed Me,
since he wrote about Me.
Joh 5:47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you
believe My words?”
Joh 7:16 Yahushua answered them, and said, My doctrine is NOT MINE,
but HIS THAT SENT ME.
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in YHWH, that raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in YHWH.
Mat 26:39 And going forward a little, He fell on His face, and prayed,
saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me.
Yet NOT AS I DESIRE, but as You desire.”
Deu 32:3 “For I proclaim the Name of [Yahweh] יהוה, Ascribe greatness
to our Elohim.
His name is not Baal Gawd!
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and
responsibility to give something back by becoming more.
Tony Robbins
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> >> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
>> >> fans or followers.
>
>> >Get a grip, Andrew. �I didn't say word one about being one of *your*
>> >fans, I specifically said "I am not a big fan of [your] posts".
>
>> Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
>> this text-based medium known as Usenet.
>
>Who's "we"?
There is more than one person involved in this written discourse being
published within Usenet and being archived by Google.
>> >> This does mean all who have been writing otherwise have been guilty of
>> >> bearing false witness, which is sin (something that GOD does not want)
>> >> according to what is written in the Bible.
>
>> > Not if they are neither Christian nor Jew.
>
>> The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
>> Christian (either Jew or gentile).
>
> It was an allegory, but a fig tree is still not a human being.
It is written in the Bible as an actual event witnessed by Jesus'
disciples rather than an allegory.
Moreover, it remains an apt illustration of sin being simply doing
something that GOD does not want by either anything or anybody He has
created.
>> > You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
>
>> GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
>
>No - God is not a man that He should lie.
Using the same standard is not lying.
> His standards are quite
>clear in the Bible - for Jew and Gentile (actual and figurative)
>alike.
It remains clear that sin continues to be very simply thinking and
then possibly doing what GOD does not want:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/good
>> > It's God's job to sort
>> > everyone out, not yours.
>
>> "GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to gather either
>> fans or followers."
>
>Fine. Your purpose here is to inform. It's still God's job alone to
>sort everyone out and separate the sheep from the goats - not yours.
GOD has called me to serve as His lamp giving light to everyone in the
room so that they can see who are saved and who are not.
>> >> Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>
>> >Yep. �And I've been doing so for 34 years, thanks.
>
>> Then please allow me to hear this via voicemail at the number listed
>> at the bottom of the following web site:
>>
>
>Uh...you've got to be kidding.
No. It remains a bona fide and reasonable request.
> No - sorry. I don't leave voicemails
> to people I don't know and have never seen saying, "Jesus is Lord".
It does require courage (aka "chutzpah") from the Holy Spirit to
publicly say "Jesus is LORD."
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
>Seeing that I have written here "Jesus is Lord" - will have to suffice
Not the same as publicly saying it.
>(although I can't possibly imagine why you think if you hear me say it
>or read it or if I do it at all makes any difference to you.
See above.
> God
> knows my heart - and that I gave it to Christ 34 years ago. You
> aren't in the equation.
Co-redemption is a lie.
Did Pharisee Saul give his heart to Christ to become Apostle Paul?
No.
Instead, the LORD removed Saul's heart of stone and replaced it with a
heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19-20), thereby changing condemned Saul to
redeemed Paul.
Similarly, may GOD soften your heart, Kelly, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
<Kelly>
wrote:
> >> Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
> >> this text-based medium known as Usenet.
> >Who's "we"?
> There is more than one person involved in this written discourse being
> published within Usenet and being archived by Google.
Okay - I'll bite...what other person(s)?
> >> The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
> >> Christian (either Jew or gentile).
> > It was an allegory, but a fig tree is still not a human being.
> It is written in the Bible as an actual event witnessed by Jesus'
> disciples rather than an allegory.
Earth to Andy - using the fig tree as an example was the allegory.
> Moreover, it remains an apt illustration of sin being simply doing
> something that GOD does not want by either anything or anybody He has
> created.
Sure...whatever you say.
> >> > You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
> >> GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
> >No - God is not a man that He should lie.
> Using the same standard is not lying.
God's already spelled it out in His Word what His standards are and
for whom. I guess you missed it.
> > His standards are quite
> >clear in the Bible - for Jew and Gentile (actual and figurative)
> >alike.
> It remains clear that sin continues to be very simply thinking and
> then possibly doing what GOD does not want:
Yeah...and? (use non-sequitur much?)
> >Fine. Your purpose here is to inform. It's still God's job alone to
> >sort everyone out and separate the sheep from the goats - not yours.
> GOD has called me to serve as His lamp giving light to everyone in the
> room so that they can see who are saved and who are not.
Baloney. Unless you can show me somewhere in the Word where God calls
human beings to be a "lamp" to show "who are saved and who are not",
you're talking out of your ego (and possible delusions of grandeur).
> >Uh...you've got to be kidding.
> No. It remains a bona fide and reasonable request.
Not reasonable at all, actually.
> > No - sorry. I don't leave voicemails
> > to people I don't know and have never seen saying, "Jesus is Lord".
> It does require courage (aka "chutzpah") from the Holy Spirit to
> publicly say "Jesus is LORD."
Yes, I suppose for some. Not for someone who's been saying it for
more than three decades, however. But chutzpah has nothing to do with
whether or not I'm gonna leave you a voicemail - me not doing so is
about caution. Plainly put, your request is beyond weird.
> "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
> 12:3)
>
> Amen.
Yes - that's what the Word says.
> >Seeing that I have written here "Jesus is Lord" - will have to suffice
> Not the same as publicly saying it.
No, but since we're in an environment that prohibits such interaction,
it'll have to do. If you can't accept that, too bad.
> >(although I can't possibly imagine why you think if you hear me say it
> >or read it or if I do it at all makes any difference to you.
> See above.
Whatever you say, Andrew.
> > God
> > knows my heart - and that I gave it to Christ 34 years ago. You
> > aren't in the equation.
> Co-redemption is a lie.
What do you mean by "co-redemption"? Pretty sure I made no reference
to any such thing...
> Did Pharisee Saul give his heart to Christ to become Apostle Paul?
>
> No.
>
> Instead, the LORD removed Saul's heart of stone and replaced it with a
> heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19-20), thereby changing condemned Saul to
> redeemed Paul.
You provided an OT reference - now, since you're referring to Paul and
his conversion, maybe you should provide a NT reference, dontcha
think?
> Similarly, may GOD soften your heart, Kelly, so that you would come to
> trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
I'm already there - and I've been trusting Jesus for likely longer
than you've been alive.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> >> Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
>> >> this text-based medium known as Usenet.
>
>> >Who's "we"?
>
>> There is more than one person involved in this written discourse being
>> published within Usenet and being archived by Google.
>
>Okay - I'll bite...what other person(s)?
The other who is being obtuse here.
>> >> The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
>> >> Christian (either Jew or gentile).
>
>> > It was an allegory, but a fig tree is still not a human being.
>
>> It is written in the Bible as an actual event witnessed by Jesus'
>> disciples rather than an allegory.
>
>Earth to Andy - using the fig tree as an example was the allegory.
The actual event was illustrative rather than allegorical.
>> Moreover, it remains an apt illustration of sin being simply doing
>> something that GOD does not want by either anything or anybody He has
>> created.
>
>Sure...whatever you say.
It was what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
>> >> > You can't hold non-believers to the same standard as believers.
>
>> >> GOD's standard is the same for all that He has created.
>
>> >No - God is not a man that He should lie.
>
>> Using the same standard is not lying.
>
>God's already spelled it out in His Word what His standards are and
>for whom. I guess you missed it.
"Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
Biblical commandment is being broken." -- Andrew, in the Holy Spirit
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d0a34a3d9b516a96?
>> > His standards are quite
>> >clear in the Bible - for Jew and Gentile (actual and figurative)
>> >alike.
>
>> It remains clear that sin continues to be very simply thinking and
>> then possibly doing what GOD does not want:
>
>Yeah...and? (use non-sequitur much?)
"Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
Biblical commandment is being broken." -- Andrew, in the Holy Spirit
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d0a34a3d9b516a96?
>> >Fine. �Your purpose here is to inform. �It's still God's job alone to
>> >sort everyone out and separate the sheep from the goats - not yours.
>
>> GOD has called me to serve as His lamp giving light to everyone in the
>> room so that they can see who are saved and who are not.
>
>Baloney.
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they
put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house." --
LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:14-15)
Amen.
> Unless you can show me somewhere in the Word where God calls
>human beings to be a "lamp" to show "who are saved and who are not",
>you're talking out of your ego (and possible delusions of grandeur).
It remains my personal choice to continue to receive the guidance of
the Holy Spirit in everything said, done, and written.
>> > Uh...you've got to be kidding.
>
>> No. �It remains a bona fide and reasonable request.
>
> Not reasonable at all, actually.
Did not ask you to say "Jesus is LORD" in multiple languages while
doing push-ups as GOD has called this disciple of Jesus to publicly do
before the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
>> > �No - sorry. �I don't leave voicemails
>> > to people I don't know and have never seen saying, "Jesus is Lord".
>
>> It does require courage (aka "chutzpah") from the Holy Spirit to
>> publicly say "Jesus is LORD."
>
>Yes, I suppose for some. Not for someone who's been saying it for
>more than three decades, however. But chutzpah has nothing to do with
>whether or not I'm gonna leave you a voicemail - me not doing so is
>about caution. Plainly put, your request is beyond weird.
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to
test and approve what GOD's will is�HIS good, pleasing and perfect
will." (Romans 12:2)
Amen.
>> "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
>> 12:3)
>>
>> Amen.
>
>Yes - that's what the Word says.
That is what is written in the Bible.
>> >Seeing that I have written here "Jesus is Lord" - will have to suffice
>
>> Not the same as publicly saying it.
>
>No, but since we're in an environment that prohibits such interaction,
>it'll have to do. If you can't accept that, too bad.
The fact remains that the Holy Spirit has not helped you to publicly
say "Jesus is LORD."
>> >(although I can't possibly imagine why you think if you hear me say it
>> >or read it or if I do it at all makes any difference to you.
>
>> See above.
>
> Whatever you say, Andrew.
Again, see above.
>> > �God
>> > knows my heart - and that I gave it to Christ 34 years ago. �You
>> > aren't in the equation.
>
>> Co-redemption is a lie.
>
> What do you mean by "co-redemption"?
Salvation through giving ones heart to Christ.
> Pretty sure I made no reference
> to any such thing...
See above.
>> Did Pharisee Saul give his heart to Christ to become Apostle Paul?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead, the LORD removed Saul's heart of stone and replaced it with a
>> heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19-20), thereby changing condemned Saul to
>> redeemed Paul.
>
>You provided an OT reference - now, since you're referring to Paul and
>his conversion, maybe you should provide a NT reference, dontcha
>think?
"It remains my personal choice to continue to receive the guidance of
the Holy Spirit in everything said, done, and written." -- Andrew, in
the Holy Spirit.
>> Similarly, may GOD soften your heart, Kelly, so that you would come to
>> trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
>
>I'm already there - and I've been trusting Jesus for likely longer
>than you've been alive.
If that were true, the Holy Spirit would have helped you publicly say
"Jesus is LORD" already.
May GOD soften your heart, Kelly, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !"
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
<Kelly>
wrote:
> >> >> Actually, we have written much without saying anything here within
> >> >> this text-based medium known as Usenet.
> >> >Who's "we"?
> >> There is more than one person involved in this written discourse being
> >> published within Usenet and being archived by Google.
> >Okay - I'll bite...what other person(s)?
> The other who is being obtuse here.
Your other personality?
> >> >> The fig tree that Jesus cursed for not doing what He wanted was not
> >> >> Christian (either Jew or gentile).
> >> > It was an allegory, but a fig tree is still not a human being.
> >> It is written in the Bible as an actual event witnessed by Jesus'
> >> disciples rather than an allegory.
> >Earth to Andy - using the fig tree as an example was the allegory.
> The actual event was illustrative rather than allegorical.
The actual event was an illustration of an allegory. Inability to
understand basic Scripture noted.
> >> Moreover, it remains an apt illustration of sin being simply doing
> >> something that GOD does not want by either anything or anybody He has
> >> created.
> >Sure...whatever you say.
> It was what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
Sure...whatever you say.
> >God's already spelled it out in His Word what His standards are and
> >for whom. I guess you missed it.
> "Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
> Biblical commandment is being broken." -- Andrew, in the Holy Spirit
I thought I heard something, but I'm not sure...
> >> It remains clear that sin continues to be very simply thinking and
> >> then possibly doing what GOD does not want:
> >Yeah...and? (use non-sequitur much?)
> "Moreover, not doing what GOD wants is a sin even if no written
> Biblical commandment is being broken." -- Andrew, in the Holy Spirit
<yawn...> Did you say something?
> >> GOD has called me to serve as His lamp giving light to everyone in the
> >> room so that they can see who are saved and who are not.
> >Baloney.
> "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
> Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they
> put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house." --
> LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:14-15)
Yes, that's what Jesus said, however...it does not pertain to you
personally deciding who's saved and who's not. It's not in your job
description.
> > Unless you can show me somewhere in the Word where God calls
> >human beings to be a "lamp" to show "who are saved and who are not",
> >you're talking out of your ego (and possible delusions of grandeur).
> It remains my personal choice to continue to receive the guidance of
> the Holy Spirit in everything said, done, and written.
Good for you.
Inability to produce requested Scripture reference noted. As
originally thought, you're a whackadoodle who uses Scripture in a
whacked-out manner in order to self-aggrandize and highlight their ego-
maniacal delusions.
> > Not reasonable at all, actually.
> Did not ask you to say "Jesus is LORD" in multiple languages while
> doing push-ups as GOD has called this disciple of Jesus to publicly do
> before the world:
You asked me to do something that has no bearing on anything. I don't
do such things as requested in Usenet. If you don't like it, too bad.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc
No, thanks.
> >Yes, I suppose for some. Not for someone who's been saying it for
> >more than three decades, however. But chutzpah has nothing to do with
> >whether or not I'm gonna leave you a voicemail - me not doing so is
> >about caution. Plainly put, your request is beyond weird.
> "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be
> transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to
> test and approve what GOD's will is—HIS good, pleasing and perfect
> will." (Romans 12:2)
Testing His will for *you* is what Romans is referring to, not testing
His will for others. I see that along with being a fake, delusional
prophet, you are also unable to properly divide the Word of Truth.
Figures.
> >> "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
> >> 12:3)
> >Yes - that's what the Word says.
> That is what is written in the Bible.
The Word is not the Bible - the Bible has the Word in it, but it also
contains a lot of what man has changed over time.
> >> Not the same as publicly saying it.
> >No, but since we're in an environment that prohibits such interaction,
> >it'll have to do. If you can't accept that, too bad.
> The fact remains that the Holy Spirit has not helped you to publicly
> say "Jesus is LORD."
He has - many, many (actually, countless) times over the last 34
years. Whether you hear it or not has no bearing on my salvation.
Again, if you can't accept that, too bad.
> >> >(although I can't possibly imagine why you think if you hear me say it
> >> >or read it or if I do it at all makes any difference to you.
> >> See above.
> > Whatever you say, Andrew.
> Again, see above.
Sure...whatever you say.
> >> Co-redemption is a lie.
> > What do you mean by "co-redemption"?
> Salvation through giving ones heart to Christ.
Well...gee. Now here you are contradicting the Word of God. No
surprise there.
> > Pretty sure I made no reference
> > to any such thing...
> See above.
Nope. Still didn't. I would think that an M.D. would have better
reading comprehension and cognitive skills.
> >You provided an OT reference - now, since you're referring to Paul and
> >his conversion, maybe you should provide a NT reference, dontcha
> >think?
> "It remains my personal choice to continue to receive the guidance of
> the Holy Spirit in everything said, done, and written." -- Andrew, in
> the Holy Spirit.
Give me a break. You're no prophet - you would have to be 100%
correct 100% of the time in order for you to be a prophet of God. And
from what I have discerned by guidance of the Holy Spirit of God (the
real one, not the one you wield around as if He were a slave to your
every whim), you are whackadoodle.
Now...are you going to provide the correct Scripture references re:
Paul's conversion or not?
> >I'm already there - and I've been trusting Jesus for likely longer
> >than you've been alive.
> If that were true, the Holy Spirit would have helped you publicly say
> "Jesus is LORD" already.
I already did. Sorry you didn't get what you asked for, but I don't
answer to you. Moreover, my salvation does not depend on what you
think of me, nor does it depend on whether or not I leave you a
voicemail.
> May GOD soften your heart, Kelly, so that you would come to trust the
> truth, Who is Jesus:
Jesus is who the Bible says He is and as His disciples knew Him to be.
You're one weird, whacked-out dude, Andy.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Truth is reality.
May GOD soften your heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20), Kelly, so that you would
come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !"
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
<Kelly>
wrote:
> Truth is reality.
And the truth is you're not living in it.
> May GOD soften your heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20), Kelly, so that you would
> come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Already there. Are you daring to blaspheme the Lord God Almighty by
denying what He has already done in my life through the atoning, shed
blood of His Son Jesus Christ?
Yes, it appears you are. Foolish, that.
Aaron
<disc...@T3WiJ.com> wrote:
***SNIP***
>
>>> Kelly, can you publicly say "Jesus is LORD" ?
>>
>>Yep. And I've been doing so for 34 years, thanks.
>
>Then please allow me to hear this via voicemail at the number listed
>at the bottom of the following web site:
STALKER!!!
>
***SNIP***
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>
>> Truth is reality.
>
>And the truth is you're not living in it.
Incorrect.
Would not have an active medical license if I were disconnected from
reality.
Instead, non-christians like Aaron are disconnected from reality as
evident by his expressing the false belief that my asking you to leave
voicemail with your saying "Jesus is LORD" is my stalking you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/05013beef0cd8c93?
>> May GOD soften your heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20), Kelly, so that you would
>> come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
>
> Already there.
Your not being able to publicly say "Jesus is LORD" indicates
otherwise.
> Are you daring to blaspheme the Lord God Almighty by
> denying what He has already done in my life through the atoning, shed
> blood of His Son Jesus Christ?
Observing that you can not publicly say "Jesus is LORD" is not
blasphemy.
Bottom line concerning you and other faux christians:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BottomLine
May GOD soften your heart, Kelly, replacing your heart of stone with a
heart of flesh in accord with what is written in Ezekiel 11:19-20 so
that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: