Why did God give Angels Penises?
Qadosh Stephanos
Genesis 6:1-5 (ASV)
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the
ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw
the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of
all that they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with
man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a
hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those
days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the
daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the
mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. And Jehovah saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Read the above very carefully. Why was God pissed off with mankind?
We are taught that the "sons of God" messed up with God's creation.
Then why was God pissed off with man, instead of the "sons of God"?
Genesis 6:6-7 (ASV)
And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I
have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and
creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I
have made them.
The people of Paul say the angels have man like reproductive organs.
Why did God give the angels penises when He said angels don't marry?
Think about it. There is obviously a misinterpretation of scripture.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:u5gfn3tj65tu17h14...@4ax.com...
???
They said no such thing.
And there is nothing in any of these passages about "angels."
> Why did God give the angels penises when He said angels don't marry?
>
> Think about it. There is obviously a misinterpretation of scripture.
Yes it is...yours.
Sons of God = the lineage from Adam to Jesus and beyond.
Sons of men = The Gentiles.
The sons of God started with Adam, who was created before every other living
thing, but placed in the Garden afterward.
The sons of men (the biological man) was created AFTER every other thing
(the product of biological success), but were in the Garden BEFORE Adam. In
fact, they WERE "the Garden." [see Ezekiel]
There is nothing in any of the passages of Genesis that have anything to DO
with "angels."
Ike
®andy
in article <7IQdj.6390$cq5.880@trndny06>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Correct. And if you look in the context immediately preceding
Genesis six (4:25 - 5:32), you find it was just talking about
the godly line Seth.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Linda Lee
wrote:
Qadosh,
Those angels invaded the realm of the flesh outside of the will of
God; they became flesh of their own accord. The offspring of the
angels and mankind were evil and the whole lineage of mankind was
tainted in that way except for Noah's family.
Angels whom God had sent to Lot were also in the form of flesh because
they appeared to Lot to be men. But they were angels, and when the
people of the city came to ravish them (just like the angels and
mankind of Genesis Six), Lot tried to give his two daughters to the
crows instead. Before you say anything about the atrocity of that, I
think he did so because mating with angels was the bigger sin, and had
already caused God to destroy the earth's inhabitants by bringing the
flood of Noah prior to that.
Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in
the gate of Sodom:
Gen 19:10 But the men [angels] put forth their hand, and pulled Lot
into the house to them, and shut to the door.
Gen 19:11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house
with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves
to find the door."
Men cannot blind other men with blindness without touching them. Also,
these 'men' are identified as angels in the first verse of chapter 19.
P.S. Ike, who answered you here, thinks Jesus and Joshua are Hebrew
names, rather than English translations of Hebrew names.
Linda Lee
Qadosh,
P.S. These angels in Genesis Six invading the flesh were doing the
same thing as the initial fallen angels, becoming flesh outside of the
will of God, not sent, but trespassing. But what this further
invasion had done was mess up God's plan of salvation for the initial
fallen angels, fallen mankind.
The churches like to take the fallen angels out of the word of God, so
they pretend this was mating of the descendants of Seth and the
descendants of Cain. That is ridiculous as it wouldn't explain why
God destroyed the earth and its inhabitants at all.
Debra
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is also prophecy about "them" mixing themselves with the seed of
men...in Daniel.
Some people claim that is done today by "ufo abductions of fallen
angels"...or by genetic manipulation in labs, etc...or that some
people have inherited a seed lineage aware or not where those genetics
are a part of who they are...like the six fingers and toes on each
hand and foot... From the days of the Nephilum..as described in the
TANAKH.
And in the TANAKH...they also defiled themselves with beasts I
believe...Does that make for all the "mythical beasts" we hear
of...what about the lion faced men??
People vary what they say about the Book of Enoch...and some say it
explains it more in detail.
Debra
Nobody Special
Yeshua told His desciples that resurrected men would be like the
angels, that is 'sexless'. Angels are spiritual beings but can take
on physical bodies however, Genesis does not name these beings
as angels.
nobody special
==============================================
Linda Lee
I think that is talking about the Jews mixing with the 'ungodly'
Gentiles, not angels mixing with mankind.
The Preacher says in Ecc. 3:18-20, “concerning the estate of the sons
of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that
they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men
befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so
dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no
preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place;
all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
Ecc. 3:21 continues, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward,
and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”
The term “sons of men” means mortals. Mortals are a mixture of spirit
and flesh. This scripture is a prayer asking that mortals will realize
that they have suffered a change and that their estate (condition)
will become apparent to them.
>
> Some people claim that is done today by "ufo abductions of fallen
> angels"...or by genetic manipulation in labs, etc...or that some
> people have inherited a seed lineage aware or not where those genetics
> are a part of who they are...like the six fingers and toes on each
> hand and foot... From the days of the Nephilum..as described in the
> TANAKH.
>
> And in the TANAKH...they also defiled themselves with beasts I
> believe...Does that make for all the "mythical beasts" we hear
> of...what about the lion faced men??
I think the many composite beasts in the Bible are symbolisms.
Sensi
Sensi:
Errr umm...Notice it says *the heart*. Ok, lay the penis
aside, forget you have one. ;-) Remove all penis's from the
face of the ground. No penis's allowed in this conversation.
Zilch,notta,none.
Now take a look at the heart and mind and look at its
reproductive system. Does it multiply in knowledge of good
and evil? Once *seeded* either by good or evil does good and
evil multiply *within? The question is who seeded the big
hairy ideas verses the angelic ideas of God?
Hence: As an minute example.
Denominations of every kind....Why?
Ideas are born everyday.
Man runs off with a new idea, he couples with it, adds other
little ideas, seeds his idea into other minds and hearts,
everybody couples with mans idea and soon you have all these
little denominational churches popping up all over creation.
Each denomination is *seeded* with ideas that the other
denomination is not the true church.
When man begins to multiply he does so in his heart and
mind. He is a miniature *creator.* He creates in his spirit
form *thoughts and ideas* as babies of his own making or
some would say *sins* of his own doings, sins of the father
which is the man who fathered his own ideas rather than God
Fathering a better idea. Man can father any idea he desires.
He doesn't need a penis to father thoughts and ideas.
So,
God created thoughts and ideas (knowledge of good and
evil)...they *intermingle* with mans thoughts and ideas and
confusion is often *born* sometimes ignorance *lives* on
forever other times *a nature of goodness,obedience,honesty,
goodwill is born and it multiplies but this all takes place
*within* without any help of a penis. =-O
Linda Lee
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:38:11 GMT,
> in article <7IQdj.6390$cq5.880@trndny06>,
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
Incorrect.
> And if you look in the context immediately preceding
> Genesis six (4:25 - 5:32), you find it was just talking about
> the godly line Seth.
Are you being deceptive or are you kidding? That is a list of
descendants of ADAM. Genesis Chapter Six starts a new subject.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:6fb2f6c5-222b-4ccf...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Qadosh,
>
> Those angels invaded the realm of the flesh outside of the will of
> God...
LOL
[snip]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> P.S. These angels in Genesis Six...
LOL
There aren't any "angels" MENTIONED in Genesis Six.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> There is also prophecy about "them" mixing themselves with the seed of
> men...in Daniel.
I think that is talking about the Jews mixing with the 'ungodly'
Gentiles, not angels mixing with mankind.
LOL
Which was the SAME thing happening in Genesis 6, except they weren't called
"Jews" or "Gentiles" yet.
They were "sons of God" and "sons of men."
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Incorrect.
Correct.
It's "sons of God," NOT "angels," and that as opposed to the daughters of
"men," i.e. the natural man, i.e. the Gentiles.
Ike
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Qadosh,
>
> > Those angels invaded the realm of the flesh outside of the will of
> > God...
>
> LOL
>
> [snip]
>
> Ike
You're a moron. Sons (and daughters) of men is a Hebrew idiom meaning
a MORTAL, and "sons of God" signifies ANGELS.
Do you really think it was the 'sons of Seth' who shouted for joy when
God created the Earth?
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who
hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the *****SONS
OF GOD****** shouted for joy?
Linda Lee
> On Dec 30, 7:29 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Qadosh,
>
> > > Those angels invaded the realm of the flesh outside of the will of
> > > God...
>
> > LOL
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Ike
You're a moron. Sons (and daughters) of men is a Hebrew idiom meaning
MORTALS, and "sons of God" signifies ANGELS.
Do you really think it was the 'sons of Seth' who shouted for joy when
God created the Earth?
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who
hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the *****SONS
OF GOD****** shouted for joy?
Forgot my signoff (you need it).
Linda Lee
Saul/Paul was a self-appointed false apostle based upon his admission
in his writings, AFTER his alleged conversion, that his message was
based upon his "lie" (Rom. 3:7) and "pretense" (Php. 1:18), and
obtained and kept his ministry through "guile" (II Cor. 12:16) and
threats of wielding a sword as a "minister of God" (Rom 13:4),
delivering followers "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (I
Cor. 5:5), and not sparing followers who asked for "proof of Christ
speaking" through him (II Cor. 13:2-3).
I believe Paul had come under the influence of the Greco-Roman culture
and taught a pagan message intended to replace worship of Yeshua` the
Saviour -- partly based upon this:
In Paul's recounting of his alleged conversion experience in Acts
9:4-5 and Acts 26:14, Paul claims the spirit of "Jesus" said to him,
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ...it is hard for thee to kick
against the pricks". Here, oddly, Paul is alleging "Jesus" is quoting
the Greek poet/dramatist Euripides from "The Bacchae", a writing
concerning the Greek 'god' Dionysus, son of the Greek 'god' Zeus and a
mortal woman, which says, "I would rather do him sacrifice than in a
fury kick against the pricks". This is no coincidence. Zeus was the
highest 'god' in the Greek pantheon of 'gods', and the quoted material
was concerning the son of a 'god' born of a woman.
I believe that Paul is accepted, in spite of his obviously evil words
and behavior following his conversion, because of a misguided
reverence for the biblical canon established by the Roman Catholic
Church, who undoubtedly included Paul's writings in the canon to use
as justification of their dominance of the world and their
Inquisitions and Crusades, as the peaceful, loving gospel of truth
preached by Yeshua` the Messiah could not justify such actions.
Paul is the way to Hell, the "lie", and death.
Yeshua` is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).
bob young
Qadosh Stephanos wrote:
> Genesis 6:1-5 (ASV)
>
> And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the
> ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw
> the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of
> all that they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with
> man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a
> hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those
> days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the
> daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the
> mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. And Jehovah saw that
> the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
> imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
>
> Read the above very carefully. Why was God pissed off with mankind?
>
> We are taught that the "sons of God" messed up with God's creation.
every picture man has ever seen of his ridiculous 'angels' were drawn,
painted and crated by man himself
there are no gods outside of delusionment
bob young
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:
..........ask a stupid question and one is bound to get a stupid answer !
bob young
Nobody Special wrote:
NO 'He' did not, what we have is a story written by a human
claiming what a deity was supposed to have said.
Very different thing.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Dec 30, 7:29 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Qadosh,
>>
>> > Those angels invaded the realm of the flesh outside of the will of
>> > God...
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ike
>
>
> You're a moron. Sons (and daughters) of men is a Hebrew idiom meaning
> a MORTAL, and "sons of God" signifies ANGELS.
LOL
Not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God.
Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without
rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine
as lights in the world;
1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,
because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what
we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is.
It's the sons of God who are immortal, and they ARE the angels, goofball.
> Do you really think it was the 'sons of Seth' who shouted for joy when
> God created the Earth?
Yes.
As God said...
Mal 3:17-18
And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make
up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that
serveth him.
Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked,
between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
Return where?
Back to the beginning of all things.
> Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
> declare, if thou hast understanding.
> Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who
> hath stretched the line upon it?
> Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
> the corner stone thereof;
> Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the *****SONS
> OF GOD****** shouted for joy?
Right.
The sons of God were with God before the founding of all things, but they
aren't ESTABLISHED until in the midst of all things, yet they aren't
selected until the resurrection.
Here's a clue for you: Eternity is NOT a line. It's a ray.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> Forgot my signoff (you need it).
Would that you would "sign off" -- permanently.
Nobody needs to hear your cult bullshit.
Ike
Linda Lee
You idiot. The earth was created before man and before Seth had any
descendants. The 'sons of God' who shouted for joy when God created
the earth are angels. You're just as dumb as sludge, aren't you? No
one needs to hear your Pauline cult crap about Sethians either.
®andy
in article
<bcf8e621-f146-45b3...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
I am incorrect that you were correct?
>> And if you look in the context immediately preceding
>> Genesis six (4:25 - 5:32), you find it was just talking about
>> the godly line Seth.
>
>Are you being deceptive or are you kidding? That is a list of
>descendants of ADAM. Genesis Chapter Six starts a new subject.
>
Genesis 4
25 ¶ And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and
called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me
another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he
called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of
the LORD.
Chapter 5
1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and
called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son
in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name
Seth:
Chapter 4 ends with the introduction of the line of Seth,
referred to as the time when men began to "call upon the name
of the LORD". The lineage is then traced from Adam, through
Seth, to Noah. Yes, this is specifically tracing the godly
line of Seth, and is the context and backdrop for Genesis
chapter 6. That's just further support for the correct
conclusion that Genesis 6 is talking about the godly line of
Seth, not angels, when it refers to the "sons of God".
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
The idiocy is all yours, not understanding the parameters of
three-dimensional time and its effect on the interpretation of things
applying to persons who are eternal.
> The earth was created before man and before Seth had any
> descendants.
Which is irrelevant: Eternity is a RAY going in BOTH directions, past and
future. Thus, linear perception has no bearing on the existence of those who
are eternal. The come in the middle of the story, but are raised at the end
of the story, and yet they have been with God since before the beginning of
the story.
> The 'sons of God' who shouted for joy when God created
> the earth are angels.
Bullshit. The sons of God are the sons of God, and even though they were
chosen in the midst of the story, they have been with God since before the
beginning of the story.
> You're just as dumb as sludge, aren't you?
Ah, no, apparently you are, missing the significance of Jesus'
eternity-based stories, like saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are even
now with God, though the resurrection of the dead hasn't even occurred yet.
> No
> one needs to hear your Pauline cult crap about Sethians either.
There is no "Pauline cult:" Only the church, which you separate yourself
from with your own cultic nonsense.
Ike
Linda Lee
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:17:07 -0800 (PST),
> in article
That the whole Chapter Five of Genesis contains Adam's lineage through
Japheth, son of Noah, proves *nothing* about the Sethians and it
certainly isn't "specifically tracing the godly line of Seth". I've
seen the argument before, and it's based on the the idea that angels
can't be affected by sexual lust (even though they sometimes appear as
men in the flesh).
**************** However, what they fail to consider is IF it were
the descendants of Seth (who was a son of Adam) who had mated with the
descendants of Cain (another son of Adam) and produced evil offspring,
Seth’s descendant NOAH would NOT have been “perfect in his
generations” (Gen. 6:9), which was the reason God spared Noah from the
flood designed to wipe out the offspring of the “sons of God” and the
daughters of mankind who were “all flesh” (Gen. 6:12), besides Noah
and his offspring. *****************
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth,
and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made
them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and
***PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS,*** and Noah walked with God.
Gen 6:10 And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was
filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt;
for ** ALL FLESH ** had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before
me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I
will destroy them with the earth.
Those who rely on baseless rumors don't think anything through for
themselves AT ALL because of unbelief and the feeling that the Bible
couldn't possibly say what it says.
These sons of God cannot be Sethians because then Noah's lineage would
not have been perfect in his generations for which he was spared from
the flood.
Linda Lee
Saul/Paul was a self-appointed false apostle based upon his admission
in his writings, AFTER his alleged conversion, that his message was
based upon his "lie" (Rom. 3:7) and "pretense" (Php. 1:18), and
obtained and kept his ministry through "guile" (II Cor. 12:16) and
threats of wielding a sword as a "minister of God" (Rom 13:4),
delivering followers "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (I
Cor. 5:5), and not sparing followers who asked for "proof of Christ
speaking" through him (II Cor. 13:2-3).
I believe Paul had come under the influence of the Greco-Roman culture
and taught a pagan message intended to replace worship of Yeshua` the
Saviour -- partly based upon this:
In Paul’s recounting of his alleged conversion experience in Acts
9:4-5 and Acts 26:14, Paul claims the spirit of "Jesus" said to him,
“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? …it is hard for thee to kick
Linda Lee
Stuff your "bullshit", Ikeyboy. I'm tired of your mouth.
baba
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Qe_dj.6037$tK5.737@trndny03...
>>>---------------->
A lemniscate or Möbius ray; thus AlphaOmega,
the serpent swallowing itself, and all those other esoteric symbols.
...nothing new under the Sun...
Sound like a crock? Maybe, but it's better than most of the crap
these fine folks have been spewing lately, doncha think?
Happy New Year to you and your family Ike.
*ż* baba
baba
"Sensi" <sensi-4...@yayhoo.com> wrote in message
news:13ngd0k...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>--------------->
ok.
Can I have my penis back now?
I need to go to the little boy's room.
I'd go to the little girl's room but you didn't say anything about
whiskers
and mine would give me away ;-)
*ż*
PS. Hey, I know somebuddy that needs one of those
penises..so if anybody forgets their's lemme know,
I'm sure it would help the person develop some
goodness,obedience,honesty,
and goodwill...
(LOL!!!)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
One notices that you never addressed the issues.
But, of course, lunatics never do--it threatens to topple their
self-sustaining delusions.
Ike
P.S. and if you don't like being rebuked with the truth, keep your heretical
nonsense out of alt.bible.prophecy and stay in alt.messymaniacs.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:sB1ej.49321$rc2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Qe_dj.6037$tK5.737@trndny03...
[snip]
>> Here's a clue for you: Eternity is NOT a line. It's a ray.
>>
>> Ike
>
>>>>---------------->
> A lemniscate or Möbius ray; thus AlphaOmega,
> the serpent swallowing itself, and all those other esoteric symbols.
Lemniscate? Possibly.
Mobius? No, for then evil and good would be on the same course instead of
diametrically opposed (although sometimes the evil is to make peace and the
good is to make war).
Actually, it is more of a three-dimensional time sphere which expands and
contracts upon itself eternally, the beginning of things and the end of
things terminating and originating at the same point.
> ...nothing new under the Sun...
>
> Sound like a crock? Maybe, but it's better than most of the crap
> these fine folks have been spewing lately, doncha think?
>
> Happy New Year to you and your family Ike.
>
> *ż* baba
Likewise.
Ike
Mikal119
You mean you are tired of reading his words.Try using a killfile.You
seem to be getting desperate.
Qadosh Stephanos
I guess if you had your wish you'd be here twiddling your thumbs.
Qadosh Stephanos
<xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>There is no "Pauline cult:" Only the church, which you separate yourself
>from with your own cultic nonsense.
Is it possible for people to obtain salvation without Paul's letters?
Qadosh Stephanos
<adra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You mean you are tired of reading his words.Try using a killfile.
I guess in ancient times, a killfile was implemented by crucifixion.
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>Happy New Year to you and your family Ike.
In ancient times, the new year was two months in the future.
They used to say Yeshua. Why did you people change His name?
There are people in Mexico named Jesus. Is that name better?
What if your handle name identity was changed to Babble-Boy,
or Diaper-Boy? You would probably have poo'd in your undies.
Count em. 12 Apostles, and 12 Tribes. 13 don't add up to 12.
By the way, I like pizza with thick crust and lots of meats.
Thin crust pizza is cutting costs. I am tired of your bacon.
Don't give me anymore of your pig meat and thin pizza bread.
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>Ok, lay the penis aside, forget you have one.
Does that mean I can't pee anymore?
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>I need to go to the little boy's room.
>I'd go to the little girl's room but you didn't say anything about
>whiskers
>and mine would give me away ;-)
Because you have a tiny uncircumcised thing doesn't mean He hates you.
baba
>>>---------------->
Interest in the size of my uncut penis noted.
*¿*
baba
>>>------------------>
If you don't like the food you're free to eat elsewhere,
Steve. BTW, I get the feeling there's a can of mixed nuts
somewhere missing a member. Maybe in a couple of months
you'll find your way back to the can in time to party with
the rest of the asylum
*¿*
Sensi
Sensi:
Lol, only if you use it *wisely.*
>
> I need to go to the little boy's room.
> I'd go to the little girl's room but you didn't say anything about
> whiskers
> and mine would give me away ;-)
>
> *ż*
Sensi:
Ahh, well I suppose neither genitalia are necessary for
being pissy.
> PS. Hey, I know somebuddy that needs one of those
> penises..so if anybody forgets their's lemme know,
> I'm sure it would help the person develop some
> goodness,obedience,honesty,
> and goodwill...
>
Sensi:
No man can seed those qualities and make them multiply like
God can. Don't tell the men, they get all pissy about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (LOL!!!)
>
>
Sensi
Sensi:
No pissiness allowed.
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>If you don't like the food you're free to eat elsewhere,
>Steve. BTW, I get the feeling there's a can of mixed nuts
>somewhere missing a member. Maybe in a couple of months
>you'll find your way back to the can in time to party with
>the rest of the asylum
Let me guess you are the soft weenie cashews.
Overweight fat pig with a head up the toilet.
2 for 1 Pizza boxed Christian lasciviousness.
Fat overweight pig squealing oick in the mud.
Anointed in the pig meat of Pauline doctrine.
You can not heal me, can you. Lick your butt.
Read the prophesy, dogs will remain as dogs.
Do not lick butts and I will not lick yours.
Yeshua is Messiah you got a problem with it.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Ah, no, then the folks on the boards could get into a serious discussion of
prophecy instead of fending off all these Babylonians.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
How would you KNOW about salvation without Paul's letters, which preceded
the writing of the Gospels (which Paul ALSO had a hand in writing)?
Ike
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>Qadosh Stephanos wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:12:53 -0600, Sensi <sensi-4...@yayhoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, lay the penis aside, forget you have one.
>>
>> Does that mean I can't pee anymore?
>
>Sensi:
>No pissiness allowed.
I guess I better get some adult-sized Pamper diapers at Wal*Mart. ;-)
Is it true that Sensi is associated with a cult-ivation of marijuana?
Maybe Advil is good. There is some pain in my head. Need Jesus relief.
Do let me know when you are ready to have intellectual conversations.
Still waiting. Been waiting for about 10 years. Babbling ain't right.
Quasi pseudo motives involved in those dark religions doesn't cut it.
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>> Because you have a tiny uncircumcised thing doesn't mean He hates you.
>
>>>>---------------->
>Interest in the size of my uncut penis noted.
You didn't understand a word I said, did you.
Heart's can change, but the brain is limited.
I guess the only thing you said is your male.
You don't know it yet, but we share thoughts.
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
PAUL'S GOSPEL WAS BASED ON LIES.
THE TRUE APOSTLES HAD NO NEED OF LIES AND TAUGHT THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH.
"I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE" - YESHUA`.
Sensi
Sensi:
I apologize for any ignorance on my part.. I hope you wait
till I become as wise as you and then maybe we can talk
about how much wiser you are than most everyone else
including myself.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Jan 1, 4:39 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:k9kin35fm8n0vpglf...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:32:34 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>> > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>There is no "Pauline cult:" Only the church, which you separate
>> >>yourself
>> >>from with your own cultic nonsense.
>>
>> > Is it possible for people to obtain salvation without Paul's letters?
>>
>> How would you KNOW about salvation without Paul's letters, which preceded
>> the writing of the Gospels (which Paul ALSO had a hand in writing)?
>>
>> Ike
>
> PAUL'S GOSPEL WAS BASED ON LIES.
You moron: The Gospels attributed to Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John ARE
Paul's Gospels--He helped write them, idiot, and his letters started the
process of getting everything recorded.
They didn't come after. They came BEFORE!
> THE TRUE APOSTLES HAD NO NEED OF LIES AND TAUGHT THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH.
Show ONE PLACE where Paul specifically said in Word something DIFFERENT from
what Jesus taught.
You never do, because YOU CAN'T--there ISN'T any such statement in the New
Testament.
Ike
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:020a1632-0b7a-4396...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 4:39 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> >>news:k9kin35fm8n0vpglf...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:32:34 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> >> > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>There is no "Pauline cult:" Only the church, which you separate
> >> >>yourself
> >> >>from with your own cultic nonsense.
>
> >> > Is it possible for people to obtain salvation without Paul's letters?
>
> >> How would you KNOW about salvation without Paul's letters, which preceded
> >> the writing of the Gospels (which Paul ALSO had a hand in writing)?
>
> >> Ike
>
> > PAUL'S GOSPEL WAS BASED ON LIES.
>
> You moron:
<snip uninteresting and lying theology>
> Ike
Quit posting to me, you moronic woman-beating PIG.
I was willing to discuss with you until you called me a whore and
Yeshua` a liar, now I know you're just unholy SWINE.
Linda Lee
Saul/Paul is a self-appointed false apostle based upon his admission
that his message was based upon his "lie" (Rom. 3:7) and his
"pretense" (Php. 1:18), whereas Prov. 14:5 says, "A faithful witness
will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies".
The Messiah's true apostles never relied on lies to spread their
gospel. In John 8:32, Yeshua` says, "ye shall know the TRUTH, and the
TRUTH shall make you free".
Paul obtained and kept his ministry through "guile" (II Cor. 12:16)
and threats of wielding a "sword" as a "minister of God" (Rom 13:4),
delivering followers "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (I
Cor. 5:5), and to "not spare" followers who asked for "proof of Christ
speaking" through him (II Cor. 13:2-3).
Paul, influenced by the Greco-Roman culture, taught a pagan message
intended to replace worship of Yeshua` the Saviour.
In Paul's recounting of his alleged conversion in Acts 9:4-5 and Acts
26:14, Paul claims the spirit of "Jesus" said to him, "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me? ...it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".
Here, oddly, Paul is alleging "Jesus" is quoting the Greek poet/
dramatist Euripides from "The Bacchae", a writing concerning the Greek
'god' Dionysus, son of the Greek 'god' Zeus and a mortal woman, which
says, "I would rather do him sacrifice than in a fury kick against the
pricks". This is no coincidence. Zeus was the highest 'god' in the
Greek pantheon of 'gods', and the quoted material was concerning the
son of a 'god' born of a woman.
Paul is accepted, in spite of his obviously evil words and behavior
following his conversion, because of a misguided reverence for the
biblical canon established by the Roman Catholic Church, who
undoubtedly included Paul's writings in the canon to use as
justification of their dominance of the world and their Inquisitions
and Crusades, as the peaceful, loving gospel of truth preached by
Yeshua` the Messiah could not justify such actions.
Paul is the way to HELL, the "lie", and DEATH.
Yeshua` is "the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE" (John 14:6).
Linda Lee
Rot in HELL, moron wifebeating lying PIG. Yeshua` did not need Paul
- the enemy of the church of God, and neither does anyone else.
Linda Lee
P.S. to the SWINE IKE,
Pro 14:5 "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will
utter lies." -- That identifies Paul as a false witness.
Quit calling Yeshua` a LIAR, you idiotic SWINE.
guardian Snow
Mat 3:17 and see, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My Son,
the Beloved, in whom I did delight."
Mat 12:48 But He answering, said to the one who spoke to Him, "Who is
My mother and who are My brothers?"
Mat 12:49 And having stretched out His hand toward His taught ones, He
said, "See My mother and My brothers!
Mat 12:50 "For whoever does the desire of My Father who is in the
heavens is My brother and sister and mother."
I'll let the scriptures speak for themselves. Genesis 6 is not
speaking of the messengers of Elohim!
Shalom,
Snow
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no
survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to
survival.
C. S. Lewis
guardian Snow
gospels. In all of Paul's books he NEVER spoke of Yeshua in the flesh
and thats because he never knew him.
A quick "vision" on the road is all he ever saw.
Your making this up or taking your facts from the grounds that you
can't show any proof of.
Shalom,
Snow
Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the
right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the
right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's
power and is not easy.
Aristotle
Qadosh Stephanos
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>I'll let the scriptures speak for themselves. Genesis 6 is not
>speaking of the messengers of Elohim!
Fortunately, you haven't got a clue of what you're talking about.
guardian Snow
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:50:03 -0800 (PST), guardian Snow
>
> >I'll let the scriptures speak for themselves. Genesis 6 is not
> >speaking of the messengers of Elohim!
>
> Fortunately, you haven't got a clue of what you're talking about.
It's a good thing then. Here I thought I was the arrogant know it all
but at least I can recognize what scriptures say.
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of Elohim came in to the daughters of men and
they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old,
the men of name.
Sons of Elohim is because Elohim created man from the ground and then
women from the mans.. Eve was created from the rib bone of Adam and
that makes them "daughters of men". The Nefphilim were the sons of
Anaq!
Num 13:33 “And we saw there the Nephilim, sons of Anaq, of the
Nephilim. And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and so we
were in their eyes.”
Jos 21:11 And they gave them Qiryath Arba, that is Ḥeḇron – Arba was
the father of Anaq
Gen 23:2 And Sarah died in Qiryath Arba, that is Ḥeḇron,
I think it's interesting that in a passage about the Nephilim, You
assumed it meant angels. We find an entire genealogy that is probably
one of the unmentioned sons of Adam...
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight
hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters:
One of the basic things that people forget is that most all of the
children of Adam and Eve are NOT mentioned by name!!!
I think I'll use this reference just to show you even Paul understood
the basic truth...
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of Elohim through belief in Messiah
יהושע.
Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called
sons of Elohim.
Luk 20:36 for neither is it possible for them to die any more, because
they are like messengers and are sons of Elohim, being sons of the
resurrection.
Plenty of References in scriptures to the Sons of Elohim being men
like the rest of us. Is it that hard to believe?
Shalom,
Snow
A proud man is seldom a grateful man, for he never thinks he gets as
much as he deserves. Children are unpredictable. You never know what
inconsistency they are going to catch you in next.
Henry Ward Beecher
Qadosh Stephanos
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>Plenty of References in scriptures to the Sons of Elohim being men
>like the rest of us. Is it that hard to believe?
Don't be like a God man. You're not ready to speak.
Do not sell what God gave you. Do not be like Paul.
Don't compromise, show 'en everything shown to you.
Linda Lee
Snow,
Gen. 6:1 cannot refer to Sethians and to believe so is to ignore the
reason for the great flood and God's reason for pardoning Noah from
it.
In Gen. 6:1-4, the prophet Moses says, “And it came to pass, when men
began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born
unto them, That the sons of God …took them wives of all which they
chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh …There were giants in the earth in those
days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became
mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
It is rumored that these “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 refer to the
descendants of Seth and “the daughters of men” refer to the
descendants of Cain. However, what they fail to consider is that if it
were the descendants of Seth (a son of Adam) who had mated with the
descendants of Cain (another son of Adam) and produced evil offspring,
Seth’s descendant Noah, would not have been “perfect in his
generations” (Gen. 6:9), which was the reason God spared Noah from the
flood designed to wipe out all the polluted offspring born of the
“sons of God” and the “daughters of men” who were “all flesh” (Gen.
6:12) other than Noah and his offspring.
These “sons of God” were angels who had invaded the realm of the flesh
and polluted the Adamic flesh God had made. These “sons of God” cannot
be descendants of Seth since Seth’s stated lineage ended with Noah’s
sons (Gen. 5:4-32), and any prior pollution would have meant Noah’s
lineage would not have been “perfect in his generations” – the reason
for which God spared him from the flood brought about due to this
pollution of Adamic humankind.
The book of Job reveals that the “sons of God” is a term the
Scriptures sometimes apply to angels.
In Job 38:6-7 says of the angels’ joy in the beginning when God
created the Earth, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons
of God shouted for joy”. (Biblically, both “stars” and “morning stars”
symbolize angels. The Hebrew name of the fallen angel ‘Lucifer’,
‘heylel’, is defined “morning star”.)
The ‘sons of God’ in Job 38:7 were angels (not descendants of Adam and
Seth who were not yet created) who were overjoyed because God had
overthrown Satan’s earthly kingdom and had then created the Earth and
Adamic humankind as living souls containing the immortal spirit as a
means of salvation by which the fallen angels (i.e. fallen spirits of
humankind) might gain a return to Heaven.
>
> Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight
> hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters:
>
> One of the basic things that people forget is that most all of the
> children of Adam and Eve are NOT mentioned by name!!!
>
> Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called
> sons of Elohim.
>
> Luk 20:36 for neither is it possible for them to die any more, because
> they are like messengers and are sons of Elohim, being sons of the
> resurrection.
>
> Plenty of References in scriptures to the Sons of Elohim being men
> like the rest of us. Is it that hard to believe?
The Bible applies both the terms “sons of God”/“children of God” and
“children of the devil” to humankind.
1 John 3:10 "In this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
The term ‘sons of God’ is a designation applied to the children of
Israel, including King Solomon in II Sam. 7:14 & I Chron. 17:13. ‘Sons
of God’ and ‘children of God’ is also a term applied to believers of
Yeshua` the Messiah as God incarnate as our Saviour. This is because
fallen man who repents and worships God receives restoration to their
initial state of being children of God rather than followers of and
children of the Devil - I John 3:10.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
The 'sons of God' in Job 38:7 were angels (not descendants of Adam and
Seth who were not yet created) who were overjoyed because God had
overthrown Satan's earthly kingdom and had then created the Earth and
Adamic humankind as living souls containing the immortal spirit as a
means of salvation by which the fallen angels (i.e. fallen spirits of
humankind) might gain a return to Heaven.
LOL
And Santa Clause gave the Easter Bunny a little pickle-tickle, and made a
bunch of tooth fairies, and...
The "sons of God" were the children of Adam and Eve. The "sons of men" were
the Gentiles who were already here, whom Adam "named" as God made them.
It's as simple as evolution versus the distinct creation of Adam.
That's why the first account has "man" coming AFTER every living thing (as
in evolution) and the second account has Adam coming BEFORE every other
living thing, and named them.
Buy a clue already, clueless one.
Ike
K F
YEP IT IS ALL IN THE HEAD ON YOUR SHOULDERS....LEAST ANYONE SHOULD GET
THE WRONG IDEA. LOL
K
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
Not even reading what you said, you ignorant adulterous cult-follower
who calls Yeshua` a liar and his followers whores.
You're as ignorant as they come - a fact proven in the last two weeks
by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
died and Jesus and Joshua (English translations) are Hebrew names.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Of course not--you must get tired of being proven wrong all the time.
> you ignorant adulterous cult-follower
> who calls Yeshua` a liar and his followers whores.
1) Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
2) I didn't call His followers whores. I called YOU a cult whore, for you
are neither His follower, AND you are a spiritual whore.
> You're as ignorant as they come - a fact proven in the last two weeks
> by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
> died and Jesus and Joshua (English translations) are Hebrew names.
???
I never said any such thing.
In fact, my first post on the subject was last night (other than some
original post that came out months ago, but you fools didn't listen then any
more than you do now).
But you lie about everything else, why not lie about this, too.
Ike
Qadosh Stephanos
<xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
Wow.
guardian Snow
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your only showing who your Father is by your own words.
Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your
father you wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has
not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaks the lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father
of it.
Why you would use that type of syntax in this forum is beyond me.
Randy ®
in article <zPUhj.29$6F6.18@trndny09>,
>The "sons of God" were the children of Adam and Eve.
The "sons of God" were the lineage of Seth (cf. Gen. 4:25 -
5:32), not all the children of Adam and Eve. Look at the
context of the preceding chapter. It is specifically tracing
the lineage through Seth.
The sons of God, then, were the godly lineage of Seth, vs. the
sons of men, who were everybody else.
>the Gentiles who were already here, whom Adam "named" as God made them.
See above. That idea has absolutely no Scriptural basis or
support, whatsoever.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Randy ®
in article <Iw2ij.354$ac7.39@trndny03>,
>1) Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:ofpho3p9qv5lu6oo0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:35:27 GMT,
> in article <zPUhj.29$6F6.18@trndny09>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The "sons of God" were the children of Adam and Eve.
>
> The "sons of God" were the lineage of Seth (cf. Gen. 4:25 -
> 5:32), not all the children of Adam and Eve. Look at the
> context of the preceding chapter. It is specifically tracing
> the lineage through Seth.
Duh.
God paired the line down many times, dividing between Shem over Ham and
Japeth, Peleg over Jaktan, Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau.
That STILL doesn't change the fact that the sons of God are the children of
Adam and Eve.
> The sons of God, then, were the godly lineage of Seth, vs. the
> sons of men, who were everybody else.
WRONG!
The OTHER seed was in the garden from the very beginning, and that other
seed was the natural man, i.e. the Gentiles, who opposed Adam from the
moment God placed Adam in the Garden.
In fact, they WERE the garden, as per Ezekiel.
>>the Gentiles who were already here, whom Adam "named" as God made them.
>
>
> See above. That idea has absolutely no Scriptural basis or
> support, whatsoever.
It has all the scriptural basis in the world: God used the exact same
symbols for the Gentiles in the second creation narrative as He gave to
Peter to tell him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles--"cattle, creeping
things, beasts of the earth, and fowls of the air." [Creeping things not
entering the picture until after God cursed "the serpent".)
Same symbols.
Same meaning.
The Gentiles, the product of the natural world, were already here when God
placed Adam among them.
Thus, both evolution and creationism were right. The slow-witted just can't
tell the difference.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT,
> in article <Iw2ij.354$ac7.39@trndny03>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>1) Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
>
>
> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
When Jesus told His disciples He wasn't going up to the festival, then,
after they left, He disguised Himself and went up anyway.
It's no big deal: Jesus had a job to do and He couldn't do it with the
Disciples hanging around, so He had to ditch them temporarily.
However, this very notion sticks in the craw of the small minded, who can't
tell the difference between a necessary strategy (as when, for instance,
David feigned insanity to save his neck) and a deception to defraud someone
else.
NOT every fib is a sin, especially if it is to protect others or because it
is born of necessity, but you can't tell Ephesian-type legalists that.
Ike
Randy ®
in article <Q67ij.546$rG.436@trndny02>,
>> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
>
>When Jesus told His disciples He wasn't going up to the festival, then,
>after they left, He disguised Himself and went up anyway.
He said he wasn't going up to the festival "yet", not that He
wasn't going at all. And it doesn't say he "disguised"
Himself, either. It says He did not go "openly", i.e. He went
secretly. All that requires is that people didn't know He was
on His way to the feast, not that He was wearing some
disguise.
John 7
8 You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast,
because for me the right time has not yet come."
Do you have any passages which actually prove Jesus lied?
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48b1da19-f7c0-482f...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d2a9d6dd-2168-4186...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Seth who were not yet created) who were overjoyed because God had
> >> overthrown Satan's earthly kingdom and had then created the Earth and
> >> Adamic humankind as living souls containing the immortal spirit as a
> >> humankind) might gain a return to Heaven.
>
> >> LOL
>
> >> And Santa Clause gave the Easter Bunny a little pickle-tickle, and made a
> >> bunch of tooth fairies, and...
>
> >> The "sons of God" were the children of Adam and Eve. The "sons of men"
> >> were
> >> the Gentiles who were already here, whom Adam "named" as God made them.
>
> >> It's as simple as evolution versus the distinct creation of Adam.
>
> >> That's why the first account has "man" coming AFTER every living thing
> >> (as
> >> in evolution) and the second account has Adam coming BEFORE every other
> >> living thing, and named them.
>
> >> Buy a clue already, clueless one.
>
> >> Ike
>
> > Not even reading what you said,
>
> Of course not--you must get tired of being proven wrong all the time.
>
> > you ignorant adulterous cult-follower
> > who calls Yeshua` a liar and his followers whores.
>
> 1) Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
>
> 2) I didn't call His followers whores. I called YOU a cult whore, for you
> are neither His follower, AND you are a spiritual whore.
YOU MORON. I am a follower of Yeshua`; you are a follower of the false
prophet and false apostle Paul.
You and your Pauline cult are the spiritual whores and the cult.
>
> > You're as ignorant as they come - a fact proven in the last two weeks
> > by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
> > died and Jesus and Joshua (English translations) are Hebrew names.
>
> ???
>
> I never said any such thing.
>
> In fact, my first post on the subject was last night (other than some
> original post that came out months ago, but you fools didn't listen then any
> more than you do now).
>
> But you lie about everything else, why not lie about this, too.
>
> Ike
You MORON,
You've just proved once again, "Jesus" is not the liar as you claim;
YOU'RE the LIAR.
Dumb Ike says:
"Paul didn't substitute anything: "Jesus" was his common name in the
streets,
where Greek and Aramaic were spoken, and "Joshua" was His private name
when
Hebrew was spoken ...Hebrew name Joshua"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/7b9cdb07eb8ddabf
When I told dumb Ike, "Neither Joshua nor Jesus are Hebrew names; they
are both English names." from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/cccd9c2fd5e790bb
Idiot Ike says:
"This comment is so dumb we'll just let it sit here and speak for
itself. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/3bf8ccb714d6dce6
You're a worthless liar, not worth the time to refute. It is noted
however in those links that all of your lies are to bolster faith in
your false apostle and false idol Paul.
All liars, such as yourself, burn in the lake of fire and suffer the
second death of the soul.
Rev 21:8 "and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Linda Lee
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
Qadosh,
Yeah, it's amazing he's so DUMB he thinks he can get away with that
when his lies are in writing in the archives.
I thought he was denying stating Joshua and Jesus were Hebrew names,
but perhaps he was denying both that and that he called Yeshua` a
liar. He's called "Jesus" a liar numerous times this last week or so.
Both of his lies were used to deny that Paul was false and to defend
Paul.
I said Paul lied; he claimed Yeshua` lied too in an attempt to justify
Paul's lies. He provided no evidence Yeshua` lied, only evidence that
Ike is really stupid and of the adulterous Pauline Christian cult in
opposition to Messianic Christians who follow Yeshua` Messiah rather
than the false apostle Paul.
The man's totally ignorant. He has a book for sale of his ignorance
too. ! ! !
Linda Lee
> On Jan 12, 11:38 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
>
>
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:48b1da19-f7c0-482f...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 11, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> > > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:d2a9d6dd-2168-4186...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> Seth who were not yet created) who were overjoyed because God had
> > >> overthrown Satan's earthly kingdom and had then created the Earth and
> > >> Adamic humankind as living souls containing the immortal spirit as a
Both of his lies were used in an attempt to defend his false apostle
Paul.
I said Paul admitted he had lied, so lying Ike said "Jesus" also lied
(providing no evidence the "Jesus" lied, only evidence of Ike's
ignorance).
These Pauline Christians demonstrate they will say anything against
Yeshua` the Messiah in order to defend Paul.
Paul is their 'god', and Satan is their father.
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:35:27 GMT,
> in article <zPUhj.29$6F6.18@trndny09>,
Wrong.
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT,
> in article <Iw2ij.354$ac7.39@trndny03>,
> wrote:
>
> >1) Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
>
> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
>
> ©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
> --
> We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
> up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
> thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
>
> Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
> Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
> life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
It doesn't. Ike lied.
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:51:44 GMT,
> in article <Q67ij.546$rG.436@trndny02>,
> wrote:
>
> >> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
>
> >When Jesus told His disciples He wasn't going up to the festival, then,
> >after they left, He disguised Himself and went up anyway.
>
> He said he wasn't going up to the festival "yet", not that He
> wasn't going at all.
Correct. He says, "I go not up yet unto this feast" and that is
followed by "he abode still in Galilee" prior to attending the
festival. Ike needs to work on his English vocabulary; the meaning of
the word 'yet' escapes him. Either that or he's deliberately lying
about Yeshua` to try to justify Paul. I'd vote for the second, since
"yet" and "still" are such common words.
Joh 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your
time is always ready.
Joh 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I
testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast;
for my time is not yet full come.
Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in
Galilee.
Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up
unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
> And it doesn't say he "disguised"
> Himself, either. It says He did not go "openly", i.e. He went
> secretly. All that requires is that people didn't know He was
> on His way to the feast, not that He was wearing some
> disguise.
>
> John 7
> 8 You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast,
> because for me the right time has not yet come."
>
> Do you have any passages which actually prove Jesus lied?
No he doesn't. He said "Jesus" lied to defend Paul's admission of his
own "lie".
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:51:44 GMT,
> in article <Q67ij.546$rG.436@trndny02>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
>>
>>When Jesus told His disciples He wasn't going up to the festival, then,
>>after they left, He disguised Himself and went up anyway.
>
>
>
> He said he wasn't going up to the festival "yet", not that He
> wasn't going at all. And it doesn't say he "disguised"
> Himself, either. It says He did not go "openly", i.e. He went
> secretly. All that requires is that people didn't know He was
> on His way to the feast, not that He was wearing some
> disguise.
>
> John 7
> 8 You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast,
> because for me the right time has not yet come."
>
>
> Do you have any passages which actually prove Jesus lied?
Yeah. The one you quoted.
The manuscripts didn't have "yet" in the texts. It was added later by those
who were offended by the idea that Jesus could tell a fib if necessary to
His cause.
From the NIV version.
Footnotes:
John 7:8 Some early manuscripts do not have yet.
The writers of the Textus Receptus duplicated the use of the term twice in
the verse when it only appears once, in connection with Jesus' "time," NOT
the feast, as is properly stated in the NRSV...
8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not* going to this festival, for my
time has not yet fully come.'
Seems a lot of people can't tell the difference between as necessary
strategy, as when a king of Israel told a necessary fib or concealed
information necessary to achieve a desired end, which is NOT a deception,
but necessary means to an end.
These are the same foolish small-minded people who think they have a right
to know everything going on in government, but don't--if such had been the
case, we never would have won WWII.
Moreover, such nonsense is a LARGE part of the quagmires the US has gotten
into since Vietnam (and as it is today), fools in Congress politicized
situations to their own ends, traitorously sacrificing this countries
advantage and esteem for their own political ends.
Regardless, "yet" is NOT in the original texts twice, but only once, and
that in reference to Jesus' end, NOT the feasts.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
On Jan 12, 5:44 pm, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:51:44 GMT,
> in article <Q67ij.546$rG.436@trndny02>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Where does the Bible indicate Jesus lied?
>
> >When Jesus told His disciples He wasn't going up to the festival, then,
> >after they left, He disguised Himself and went up anyway.
>
> He said he wasn't going up to the festival "yet", not that He
> wasn't going at all.
Correct.
Wrong.
"Yet" is only in the text once, not twice, and Jesus said it in reference to
His "time," NOT the feast, which is why the rendering in the KJV is
convoluted, whereas in later translations it is not--the word didn't go in
there.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip]
> I said Paul admitted he had lied,
Paul didn't "admit" any such thing, but was stating a euphemism. The problem
here is you can't read for shit, deliberately making the Bible--in
particular, Paul--say what it doesn't say.
> so lying Ike said "Jesus" also lied
> (providing no evidence the "Jesus" lied, only evidence of Ike's
> ignorance).
The only liar here is you cultist, and if you think there is ONE actual
Christian that will follow you into your heresies, you're sadly mistaken.
Now go back to the messymaniacs where you belong, beast, and stay out of the
Christian boards.
> These Pauline Christians demonstrate they will say anything against
> Yeshua` the Messiah in order to defend Paul.
>
> Paul is their 'god', and Satan is their father.
Satan is YOUR God, beast, and YOUR father was a liar from the beginning.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No, you're not.
> you are a follower of the false
> prophet and false apostle Paul.
Paul taught Jesus, and you wouldn't KNOW anything about Jesus if it were not
for Paul, whose letters preceded the writing of the Gospels, which Paul ALSO
participated in, as Luke says...
Lk 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration
of those things which are most surely believed among US, even as they
delivered them unto US, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and
ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of
those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Who was "US?" "Us" was Luke, Mark, Peter, and Paul, plus whatever additional
witnesses Luke referenced.
> You and your Pauline cult are the spiritual whores and the cult.
LOL.
Idiot: You wouldn't KNOW anything about Jesus if it weren't for Paul, whose
letters and participation in the writing of the Gospels PRESERVED the
knowledge of Jesus in the world.
>> > You're as ignorant as they come - a fact proven in the last two weeks
>> > by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
>> > died and Jesus and Joshua (English translations) are Hebrew names.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I never said any such thing.
>>
>> In fact, my first post on the subject was last night (other than some
>> original post that came out months ago, but you fools didn't listen then
>> any
>> more than you do now).
>>
>> But you lie about everything else, why not lie about this, too.
>>
>> Ike
>
>
>
> You MORON,
>
> You've just proved once again, "Jesus" is not the liar as you claim;
> YOU'RE the LIAR.
>
> Dumb Ike says:
> "Paul didn't substitute anything: "Jesus" was his common name in the
> streets,
> where Greek and Aramaic were spoken, and "Joshua" was His private name
> when
> Hebrew was spoken ...Hebrew name Joshua"
Which is fact: Jesus, like everyone else in Judea at the time, spoke at
least Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (and possibly Latin) and his name was
transposed according to the language in reference at the time.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/7b9cdb07eb8ddabf
>
>
> When I told dumb Ike, "Neither Joshua nor Jesus are Hebrew names; they
> are both English names." from
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/cccd9c2fd5e790bb
Which is false, as these are just translational variations of the names.
> Idiot Ike says:
> "This comment is so dumb we'll just let it sit here and speak for
> itself. "
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/3bf8ccb714d6dce6
Which is always true, your comments demonstrating your foolishness.
> You're a worthless liar, not worth the time to refute.
No, I'm the one bearing TRUE witness, and proving you the liar at every
turn.
> It is noted
> however in those links that all of your lies are to bolster faith in
> your false apostle and false idol Paul.
My faith isn't IN the apostle Paul--it's in Jesus Christ, whom Paul
proclaimed you cultic nitwit.
> All liars, such as yourself, burn in the lake of fire and suffer the
> second death of the soul.
>
> Rev 21:8 "and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
> burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
The fire is reserved for you for bearing false witness against God's
messenger.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Jan 12, 8:45 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>>
>> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Jesus did "lie" as the occasion called for.
>>
>> Wow.
>
>
>
> Qadosh,
>
> Yeah, it's amazing he's so DUMB he thinks he can get away with that
> when his lies are in writing in the archives.
I'm not "getting away" with anything--it's a textual fact: The double use of
"yet" was NOT in the original texts, but copyists and translators inserted
it because of the controversy with the feeble-minded that such a statement
invokes.
Ike
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:06ab1108-84be-470f...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 12, 8:45 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
> >> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Wow.
>
> > Qadosh,
>
> > Yeah, it's amazing he's so DUMB he thinks he can get away with that
> > when his lies are in writing in the archives.
>
> I'm not "getting away" with anything--it's a textual fact: The double use of
> "yet" was NOT in the original texts, but copyists and translators inserted
> it because of the controversy with the feeble-minded that such a statement
> invokes.
>
> Ike
Who CARES MORON? The text said he 'abode still in Galilee' after
saying he was not going to the feast.
And you need to quit telling the additional lie that we would not have
Yeshua` without Paul. You're disgusting.
You're the liar; not Yeshua`. You're a liar and an adulterous whore
for your cultic 'god' Paul.
Linda Lee
>
> >> 2) I didn't call His followers whores. I called YOU a cult whore, for you
> >> are neither His follower, AND you are a spiritual whore.
>
> > YOU MORON. I am a follower of Yeshua`;
>
> No, you're not.
>
> > you are a follower of the false
> > prophet and false apostle Paul.
>
> for Paul, whose letters preceded the writing of the Gospels, which Paul ALSO
> participated in, as Luke says...
>
> Lk 1:1-4
> Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration
> of those things which are most surely believed among US, even as they
> delivered them unto US, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and
> ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect
> understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in
> order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of
> those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
>
> Who was "US?" "Us" was Luke, Mark, Peter, and Paul, plus whatever additional
> witnesses Luke referenced.
>
> > You and your Pauline cult are the spiritual whores and the cult.
>
> LOL.
>
> letters and participation in the writing of the Gospels PRESERVED the
>
>
>
> >> > You're as ignorant as they come - a fact proven in the last two weeks
> >> > by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
>
> >> ???
>
> >> I never said any such thing.
>
> >> In fact, my first post on the subject was last night (other than some
> >> original post that came out months ago, but you fools didn't listen then
> >> any
> >> more than you do now).
>
> >> But you lie about everything else, why not lie about this, too.
>
> >>Ike
>
> > You MORON,
>
> > You've just proved once again, "Jesus" is not theliaras you claim;
> > YOU'RE theLIAR.
>
> > DumbIkesays:
> > "Paul didn't substitute anything: "Jesus" was his common name in the
> > streets,
> > where Greek and Aramaic were spoken, and "Joshua" was His private name
> > when
> > Hebrew was spoken ...Hebrew name Joshua"
>
> Which is fact:Jesus, like everyone else in Judea at the time, spoke at
> least Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (and possibly Latin) and his name was
> transposed according to the language in reference at the time.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/7b9cdb07eb8ddabf
>
> > are both English names." from
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/cccd9c2fd5e790bb
>
> Which is false, as these are just translational variations of the names.
>
> > IdiotIkesays:
> > "This comment is so dumb we'll just let it sit here and speak for
> > itself. "
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/3bf8ccb714d6dce6
>
> Which is always true, your comments demonstrating your foolishness.
>
>
> No, I'm the one bearing TRUE witness, and proving you theliarat every
> turn.
>
> > It is noted
> > however in those links that all of your lies are to bolster faith in
> > your false apostle and false idol Paul.
>
> proclaimed you cultic nitwit.
>
> > All liars, such as yourself, burn in the lake of fire and suffer the
> > second death of the soul.
>
> > Rev 21:8 "and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
> > burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
>
> The fire is reserved for you for bearing false witness against God's
> messenger.
>
> Ike
Go to Hell Ikenboob, you scum of the earth, and quit posting your lies
directly to me.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
And the she-beast continues her tirade while failing to deal with the facts.
And if you don't want to hear it, STAY OFF THE CHRISTIAN BOARDS, and get
back to alt.messymaniacs, where you belong.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Jan 12, 8:47 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:06ab1108-84be-470f...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 12, 8:45 am, Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.stepha...@yahoo.ca>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:38:00 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>>
>> >> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >Jesusdid "lie" as the occasion called for.
>>
>> >> Wow.
>>
>> > Qadosh,
>>
>> > Yeah, it's amazing he's so DUMB he thinks he can get away with that
>> > when his lies are in writing in the archives.
>>
>> I'm not "getting away" with anything--it's a textual fact: The double use
>> of
>> "yet" was NOT in the original texts, but copyists and translators
>> inserted
>> it because of the controversy with the feeble-minded that such a
>> statement
>> invokes.
>>
>> Ike
>
>
> Who CARES MORON? The text said he 'abode still in Galilee' after
> saying he was not going to the feast.
And then He went up in secret, which He COULDN'T have done if He had told
the disciple's He was going up to the feast.
[snip the rest of the Jezebellian ranting]
Ike
Randy ®
in article <k_6ij.544$rG.125@trndny02>,
I see absolutely no scriptural evidence to support those
ideas, and find your explanation completely unconvincing.
Randy ®
in article <0Sdij.3674$s67.2096@trndny05>,
Which doesn't change the fact that "going" is in the present,
not future or perfect tense. He was not presently going,
because the right time had not "yet" come. There's no way you
can force that verse to only mean He said He would not go at
all, which is what is necessary to prove He lied.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Of course not--you're blinded by every other
fundamentalist/dispensationalist myth. Why would you start "seeing" now?
Nevertheless, the natural man came at the end of the sequence [the first
Genesis account] and Adam came before any other living thing [the second
Genesis account], and the Bible was a "two tree" story from the very
beginning.
Or as Ezekiel says of the great "cedar," "thou has been in Eden, in the
Garden of God," the "trees" being the garden, and the "cedar" being the
Adversary.
Or didn't you notice that the fight was between "seed" and "seed?"
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No, it's present active indicative, which means that it is "not going" as an
ongoing statement of fact.
> He was not presently going,
> because the right time had not "yet" come.
No, His reference to "time" is off His arrest, conviction, and crucifixion,
as the follow up verses tell us that the Jews were already looking for Him
to arrest Him, which was why He had to shake the disciples and go up in
secret, disguising Himself so no one would recognize Him (as attested to by
the fact that people saw Him, but did not know who He was).
> There's no way you
> can force that verse to only mean He said He would not go at
> all, which is what is necessary to prove He lied.
LOL
I don't have to "force" anything.
And you have much bigger problems than this, oh, child-minded one.
Jud 9:23 Then GOD SENT AN EVIL SPIRIT between Abimelech and the men of
Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
1Sa 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, AN EVIL SPIRIT FROM
GOD troubleth thee.
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a LYING SPIRIT in the
mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning
thee.
2Ch 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a LYING SPIRIT in the
mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.
Jer 4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely THOU HAST GREATLY DECEIVED this
people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword
reacheth unto the soul.
Jer 20:7 O LORD, THOU HAST DECEIVED ME, AND I WAS DECEIVED: thou art
stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one
mocketh me.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause GOD SHALL SEND THEM STRONG DELUSION, that they
should believe a lie...
Contrary to the thinking of the immature, it's not a matter of all truths
being "good" and all lies being "evil," but it's the intent of the truth or
lie, and who is handling it, that determines "good" and "evil," as God has
deceived those who choose to oppose Him, and Satan has told "truths" (albeit
half-truths) to those whom He seeks to destroy.
Guess it's time for you to get off the milk on onto the meat, little one.
Ike
Linda Lee
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ja2jo3pnuuesk0e4o...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:31:40 GMT,
> > in article <0Sdij.3674$s67.2096@trndny05>,
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:etfio35t98il877qh...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:51:44 GMT,
> >>> in article <Q67ij.546$rG.436@trndny02>,
Yeshua` Messiah was NOT a LIAR.
YOU are the LIAR, you DESPICABLE UNHOLY SWINE.
You prove Yeshua` is also accurate to say:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before SWINE, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you" (Matt. 7:6).
Qadosh Stephanos
<xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The only liar here is you cultist
Matthew 12:26 (ASV)
and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how
then shall his kingdom stand?
The cults of Paulism. The divided kingdom. Daughter's of the whore.
Paul's fearful slaves:
1st John 4:18 (ASV)
There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because
fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Ephesians 6:5 (ASV)
Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your
masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
Christ;
Adam, the son of God?
Luke 3:38 (ASV)
the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Qadosh Stephanos
<xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>STAY OFF THE CHRISTIAN BOARDS
Why are you afraid?
®andy
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:su1jo3png6ficgdq8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:42:40 GMT,
> > in article <k_6ij.544$rG.125@trndny02>,
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ofpho3p9qv5lu6oo0...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:35:27 GMT,
> >>> in article <zPUhj.29$6F6.18@trndny09>,
Again, why do you think this indicates there were already people here,
then Adam just named them? I don't see that stated or implied in any
verse you have quoted. It is simply talking about the godly lineage
from Adam, through Seth, to Noah, then contrasting it with everyone
else. It seems to me you're trying to merge two contradictory ideas,
to accommodate secular ideology like evolution, salvation by by
personal merit, etc.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:36:52 GMT, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
Qadosh,
Beginning with Luke 3:34 the word "son" is in italics because it is an
addition, so although Adam had a close personal relationship with God
and worshipped God before and after his fall (which is the criteria
for being a son of God), technically it does not say Adam is a "son of
God".
Nice job of showing the different gospels of Paul and Yeshua` though
(i.e. Paul wants them to fear both men and Christ, Yeshua`'s apostle
does not want them to fear at all, but to love). There are many of
these differences, which the Pauline followers will undoubtedly
continue to ignore.
Anyone like Ike who could call those who follow Yeshua` and his true
apostles 'cultists', claims Christ is a liar like Paul, and who
believes that without Paul we wouldn't have Christ is obviously
totally blinded by their Pauline worship.
Paul is the way to HELL, the LIE, and DEATH.
Yeshua` is the Way, the TRUTH, and the LIFE.
Randy ®
in article <8Kkij.396$ac7.362@trndny03>,
The verses you quoted do not show God is lying, or the author
of lies, but that He allows people to be afflicted with
troubling, lying spirits and delusions, after they already
reject the truth.
For example, 2 Thess. 2:11 shows these people rejected the
truth before God sent them strong delusion:
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie:
In the same way, as in Romans 1, people did not like to retain
the knowledge of God, so He gave them over to _their own_
corrupt desires. The non-elect already hate and reject the
truth, and prefer the lies of Satan. God simply gives them
over to their desires, and allows them to be afflicted by evil
spirits He might otherwise restrain.
>Contrary to the thinking of the immature, it's not a matter of all truths
>being "good" and all lies being "evil," but it's the intent of the truth or
>lie, and who is handling it, that determines "good" and "evil," as God has
>deceived those who choose to oppose Him, and Satan has told "truths" (albeit
>half-truths) to those whom He seeks to destroy.
>
>Guess it's time for you to get off the milk on onto the meat, little one.
And now you must appeal to pride of intellect...that pied
piper who has led so many to spiritual oblivion.
>Ike
Qadosh Stephanos
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>Beginning with Luke 3:34 the word "son" is in italics because it is an
>addition
Don't like to say Luke, but it was relevant, not true, but relevant.
Qadosh Stephanos
wrote:
>Do you have any passages which actually prove Jesus lied?
Did Pual lie?
Qadosh Stephanos
<xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>NOT every fib is a sin
Wow.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:btjko31ssgei906td...@4ax.com...
"All unrighteousness is sin:" 1 John 5:17 (KJV)
Including fibbing or lying.
Jeff...
Debra
> On Jan 12, 7:38 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>
>
>
>
>
> <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > On Jan 11, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> > > <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> The 'sons of God' in Job 38:7 wereangels(not descendants of Adam and
> > >> Seth who were not yet created) who were overjoyed because God had
> > >> overthrown Satan's earthly kingdom and had then created the Earth and
> > >> Adamic humankind as living souls containing the immortal spirit as a
> > >> means of salvation by which the fallenangels(i.e. fallen spirits of
> > >> humankind) might gain a return to Heaven.
>
> > >> LOL
>
> > >> And Santa Clause gave the Easter Bunny a little pickle-tickle, and made a
> > >> bunch of tooth fairies, and...
>
> > >> were
> > >> the Gentiles who were already here, whom Adam "named" as God made them.
>
>
> > >> That's why the first account has "man" coming AFTER every living thing
> > >> (as
> > >> in evolution) and the second account has Adam coming BEFORE every other
> > >> living thing, and named them.
>
> > >> Buy a clue already, clueless one.
>
> > >> Ike
>
> > > Not even reading what you said,
>
> > Of course not--you must get tired of being proven wrong all the time.
>
> > > �you ignorant adulterous cult-follower
>
>
> > 2) I didn't call His followers whores. I called YOU a cult whore, for you
> > are neither His follower, AND you are a spiritual whore.
>
> prophet and false apostle Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > by your claims Paul and Barnabas lived after the initial apostles had
>
> > ???
>
> > I never said any such thing.
>
> > In fact, my first post on the subject was last night (other than some
> > original post that came out months ago, but you fools didn't listen then any
> > more than you do now).
>
> > But you lie about everything else, why not lie about this, too.
>
> > Ike
>
> You MORON,
>
> YOU'RE the LIAR.
>
> Dumb Ike says:
> streets,
> where Greek and Aramaic were spoken, and "Joshua" was His private name
> when
> Hebrew was spoken ...Hebrew name Joshua"
>
>
> When I told dumb Ike, "Neither Joshua nor Jesus are Hebrew names; they
> "This comment is so dumb we'll just let it sit here and speak for
> itself. "
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/3bf8ccb714d6dce6
>
> however in those links that all of your lies are to bolster faith in
> your false apostle and false idol Paul.
>
> second death of the soul.
>
> Rev 21:8 �"and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU MORON. I am a follower of Yeshua
Yeshua like?