Who IS Israel
Pastor Dave
Who IS Israel: There have been some interesting discussions
going on about Israel. The thing we have to ask ourselves
is: "Who IS Israel?" by Sandy Elders
The Doctrine of Dispensationalism states that the Church of
Christ, which was born on the day of Pentecost as recorded
in Acts 2, is definitely NOT a part of God's covenants with
Abraham and David. It is believed that the Christian Church
with its gospel of grace is only an "interruption of God's
original plan with Israel, unforeseen by the Old Testament
prophets and having no connection with God's promises of
a kingdom to Abraham, Moses, and David.
Pre-tribulationists tell us that God rejected the House of
Israel at the Crucifixion, and placed her on freeze so as
to place emphasis on the Church and "Church age".
Do not be deceived. God did not "replace" Israel with the
Church, but Old-Testament Israel and the New-Testament
Church are one, and have always been one. It was
the leadership of Israel that was replaced at the Cross,
given to the Apostles when taken away from the
Sanhedrin/Pharisees, but this in no way means that
Jesus started a new Body called the "Church".
Old-Testament Israel was the "Church," as is made obvious
by the Septuagint's 78 instances of "ekklesia" (Greek for
"church") when referring to the Old-Testament Congregation
of Israel. Indeed, the "church of Israel" is a phrase found
throughout the Old Testament...over a hundred times...
but usually translated into our English Bibles as
"congregation of Israel" (NIV, "assembly of Israel").
Check out Strong's concordance under "congregation".
As this Old-Testament Church was eventually cleansed in
the Blood of the Lamb when that Lamb appeared in a flesh
body, it's clear that the Old-Testament Church became
the New-Testament Church, and did not replace it
(big difference). "I will cut a new covenant with the house
of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to
the covenant which I cut with their fathers...which they
broke..." (Jeremiah 31:31-32).
Clearly, New Covenant Israel was cut from no other Body
but Old-Testament Israel, to renew her, not to replace her
with a second Body called the "Church". If God had rejected
all within sinful Israel, He would not have provided the
Second Covenant for her. Yes, God rejected some of the
Jews in sinful Israel, but he took a portion of them and
provided them with the Blood. Isaiah also cries out
concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved
(Romans 9:7).
That Portion, still called "Israel " the "Church" or "Elect"
as in Old-Testament times, does not therefore become a
second Body of God's people, but the same Body refurbished,
renovated, repaired, renewed, recast, recovered, redeemed,
but not replaced! Jesus died so that Old-Testament Israel
could bloom into the Christian Church! Something has got
to be markedly wrong with a theology that views Israel as
being rejected at the Cross when the very essence of the
Cross is a new beginning for Israel.
Can there be any doubt that the Old Testament Body and
the New Testament Body are one and the same Household?
In Acts 7:38, within a few weeks of Christ's ascension to
Heaven, Stephen calls the Israel of very early Old-Testament
times, "the church:"Everything we enjoy in the New Covenant
is because Jesus fulfilled the promises made unto the
Fathers. Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant
to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made to the fathers, (Romans 15:8).
The first time the name "Israel" is used in the Bible is in
Gen 32:27,28. After Jacob wrestled with the angel and
Jacob would not let go until he received a blessing,
the angel said "What is your name? and he said, Jacob.
And he said, Thy name shall be called nor more Jacob,
but Israel (meaning Prince of God), for you have struggled
with God and with men and have prevailed".
So the name "Israel" was given to Jacob as a Spiritual name.
Jacob's self-sufficiency was gone, he was willing to give up
self and follow God. His new Spiritual name referred to his
character.
The Bible teaches that God set out to bless the world
through another single man. His name was Abram.
It meant, "Father of high places," because in his day people
went to the nearest high place to try to get closer to their
pagan gods. But his name was changed by God to reflect
this promised blessing. His name was changed to Abraham,
meaning "Father of a multitude." Why was he called this?
It was because of the promise that he would be the father,
both physically and spiritually, of a great many people.
And through him, the entire world would be blessed.
Paul in several places is very clear on this issue. Israel
is a promise. It is a promise made long ago to a gentle
man with a faithful heart. Paul tells us that if we are of
faith then we are Abraham's seed and heirs to the promise.
Israel is a "root". Into that root, God can graft branches
both wild and natural.
The thing to remember is that it is all about the covenant.
Now, we have a "new" covenant that includes Gentiles as
well as Jews. In fact, there is no longer Jew nor Greek.
We are all ONE in Christ. This is the great mistery spoken
of by Paul in Romans 11 and Ephesians 2.
It is spectacular but this is the very thing Christ said
would happen. The kingdom would be taken away from
"natural" Israel and given to a people, "the new covenant
Israel", who will bear the fruit thereof. Make no mistake,
the kingdom has been taken from natural Israel and the
old Jerusalem and Temple were judged for their harlotry.
The New Jerusalem has come according to the writer of
Hebrews. We have come (past tense) to mount Zion and
we are here now. The curse of the old covenant (which
was weak because God found fault with the PEOPLE),
has been removed and now we live in the most wonderful
paradise of all: "closeness with our God". We dwell closer
with him now than the natural tribes of Israel ever did.
Think about that.
The way this "new" Israel, who dwells in the "New Jerusalem"
which resides in the "New Heavens and New Earth," under
this "New Covenant" is to be saved is by first cutting out
all the branches from the root (Rom 11) and then, carefully
and lovingly grafting natural and wild branches back in.
And "in this way," ALL (complete) Israel will be saved.
Does that make sense?
Earlier in his ministry, Paul had famously written to the
Galatians about judaizing (a term only used in Galatians
2.14) and of his own upbringing in Judaism (again only
used in the New Testament in Galatians 1.13-14). In this
epistle he distinguished between Judaism and the church
of God and then left us with the troublesome phraseology
of chapter 6:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as
walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them
and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6.15-16)
Just who is the 'Israel of God'? Are they 'new Israel,
true Israel' or 'Israel after the flesh'? Elsewhere, Paul
writes to the Romans about 'inward' or 'in secret' Jews:
"but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision
is of the heart; by the Spirit and not in letter; whose
praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2.29)
When Paul wrote to Christians in Rome, some of whom
were Jews, he revealed the existence of two Israels in one
sentence while rejecting one of them as such: "Not all the
ones of Israel are Israel..." (Romans 9:6). There you have
it; two distinct Israels in one statement. The first
represents the Israelites by blood alone, but Paul says
this Israel is not Israel at all! Clearly, then, he calls
the one, "Israel," whom he believes is not Israel, which can
only mean he retains the use of the term only to identify
the bloodline of Abraham, not to define it. He goes on to
say, "...nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they
all his children". "It is not Abraham's children of the
flesh who are children of God, but the children of the
promise made to Abraham" (vs 8).
Paul's letter to the Ephesians mentions the gentiles being
'brought near' to the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians
2.12) and of the two peoples being made 'one'.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
�A man who hasn't found something worth dying for,
is not fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
3rf9j591nr1fvrgk1...@4ax.com
> Who IS Israel: There have been some interesting discussions
> going on about Israel. The thing we have to ask ourselves
> is: "Who IS Israel?"
God's chosen people as described in the Old Testament.
[lies snipped]
--
___________________________________________________
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de
http://the-beauty-of-the-psalms.blogspot.com
http://jesus-christ-is-my-lord-and-my-god.blogspot.com
http://bible-prophecy-and-revelation.blogspot.com/
Ike E 12/22/2009
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3rf9j591nr1fvrgk1...@4ax.com...
>
> Who IS Israel?
Which one? The one that "was," "is" or "is yet to come?"
[snippeth]
Ike
SwordoZ
"Ike E 12/22/2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh52i9$c38$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Creation "was" ... "is" presently and "is yet to come" unabated. :)
soz
Ike E 12/22/2009
" ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7pkg3l...@mid.individual.net...
> God's chosen people as described in the Old Testament...
...have little or nothing to do with God's "chosen people" in the present
Testament, or God's "chosen people" yet to come in the next Testament,
though they are all related to each other, exactly like a nuclear family.
Ike
::: Jesus is LORD :::
What a nonsense! All Israel means all Israel, all the descendants of
Jacob!
You always claim to know better than Paul, too...
Ike, are you blind? Can you not read???
Why do you ignore almost a whole chapter of the Bible??? I can tell you,
it is because you are a false teacher. You may ignore the following, but
I hope the reader does not, and all see what a liar you are:
Romans 11:1-32 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an
Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what
the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against
Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what
saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according
to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise
work is no more work.
(7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but
the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (8) (According
as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
(9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be
darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for
to provoke them to jealousy.
(12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the
diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their
fulness? (13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle
of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may
provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of
them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
(16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the
root be holy, so are the branches.
(17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree;
(18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.
(19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in. (20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and
thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: (21) For if God
spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
(22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
(23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
(24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much
more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their
own olive tree?
(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in
part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in.
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
(28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (30) For
as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
through their unbelief: (31) Even so have these also now not believed,
that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
(32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have
mercy upon all.
*+*^+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*
Again, Ike, read this form the verses above:
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
Now tell us why you think you know better than Paul!
Ike E 1/2/2010
> Ike E 12/22/2009 xhermanei...@gmail.com wrote in
> hhn61f$1cb$1...@news.eternal-september.org
>> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:7pkg3l...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> God's chosen people as described in the Old Testament...
>>
>> ...have little or nothing to do with God's "chosen people" in the
>> present Testament, or God's "chosen people" yet to come in the next
>> Testament, though they are all related to each other, exactly like a
>> nuclear family.
>> Ike
>
> What a nonsense!
Fact, oh, clueless one: The Remnant to come will be "of" "father" Israel and
"mother" Christianity, but neither, as a child is "of" his or her mother and
father, but neither.
That's what Paul was referring to when he compared the mystery of the church
to a man and woman becoming one flesh, and what John was referring to with
his dualistic Remnant that will "keep the commandments of God AND have the
testimony of Jesus Christ," etc, etc.
> All Israel means all Israel, all the descendants of Jacob!
But they're NOT "descendants of Jacob" you moron: That's the point Jesus,
Paul, and John were all making when they discussed THE JEWS WHO SAY THEY ARE
JEWS, AND ARE NOT, BUT DO LIE.
YOU idiots think the sons of the PHARISEES are "Jews," when the Israel GOD
is referring to in prophecy IS THE REMNANT HE HAS HIDDEN IN THE NATIONS.
> You always claim to know better than Paul, too...
No, I KNOW what Jesus, Paul, and John were TALKING ABOUT. I don't know
"better" then them you ass--I know BECAUSE OF THEM.
> Ike, are you blind? Can you not read???
CAN YOU?
John 8:31-45
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in
my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free.
They answered him, We be Abraham�s seed, and were never in bondage to
any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin; and the servant abideth not in the
house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make
you free, ye shall be free indeed.
I KNOW YE ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED; but ye seek to kill me, because my word
hath no place in you.
I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye
have seen with your father.
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.
Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN, YE WOULD DO THE
WORKS OF ABRAHAM. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the
truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Ye do the deeds of your father.
Then said they to him, WE BE NOT CHILDREN OF FORNICATION; we have one
Father, even God.
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech?
even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the
truth, ye believe me not.
Now HOW could Jesus say these were children of Abraham on the one hand, and
NOT children of Abraham on the other?
ANSWER: WRONG MOTHER.
THESE INFILTRATORS WHO HAD TAKEN OVER ISRAEL WERE NOT "JEWS." THEY WERE
CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM BY THE WRONG MOTHER, HAGAR, NOT SARAH, JUST LIKE PAUL
SAID...
Rom 9:6-13
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, for they are NOT
ALL ISRAEL which are OF ISRAEL, neither, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF
ABRAHAM ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: but, IN ISAAC shall thy seed be called, that
is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and SARA
shall have a son.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by
our father Isaac--for the children being not yet born, neither having done
any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth--it was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger. As it is written, JACOB have I loved, but ESAU have I
hated.
Get it yet?
> Why do you ignore almost a whole chapter of the Bible???
WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT?
JESUS CONDEMNED THE MAJORITY OF THE PHARISEES AS FALSE JEWS.
PAUL CONDEMNED THE MAJORITY OF THE JEWS AS NOT ISRAEL.
SO DID JOHN?
PROBLEM IS, YOU IDIOTS THINK THAT THE CHILDREN OF THE PHARISEES ARE GOD'S
"ISRAEL."
NO!
GOD'S "ISRAEL," i.e. THE REMNANT, i.e. THE 144,000, IS HIDDEN IN THE
NATIONS, AND HE'LL CALL THEM OUT WHEN THE TIME IS COME.
That's why Jesus hailed Andrew with "behold an ISRAELITE INDEED in whose
mouth is NO GUILE." HE, like the rest of the Disciples, was a TRUE
ISRAELITE, and one of THE FEW LEFT AT THE TIME.
> I can tell you,
You can't tell me anything, you ignorant twat. That's the problem: You don't
KNOW, so how can you TELL?
> it is because you are a false teacher.
NO, that would be YOU AND YOUR ILK, IGNORING WHAT JESUS, PAUL, AND JOHN
SAID.
Idiots.
[snip]
> Again, Ike, read this form the verses above:
>
> (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
> come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
> Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
> their sins.
ALL ISRAEL is ALL THOSE WHO ARE ISRAELITES INDEED (which isn't many, but a
few), NOT EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS THEY'RE "an Israelite," oh, ignorant one.
> Now tell us why you think you know better than Paul!
NOT "BETTER" THAN PAUL, you ignorant twat: BECAUSE of Paul...
Gal 4:21-31 [ed]
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
For it is written, that Abraham had TWO sons, the one by a BONDMAID
[Sarah], the other by a FREEWOMAN [Hagar]: But he who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants [Sarah and
Hagar]; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar: For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is
above is free, which is the mother of us all.
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth
and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children
than she which hath an husband. [Sarah]
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise; but as then
he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the
Spirit, even so it is now.
Nevertheless what saith the scripture?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son [Hagar]: for the son of the bondwoman
shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free.
GET IT YET?
JESUS was talking about "false Jews."
Paul was talking about "false Jews."
John was talking about "false Jews."
These Rabbinical fools you see running around are by-and-large NOT
"Israelites," but "those who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie,"
and it will be THESE morons who REBUILD THE TEMPLE, in ABJECT REJECTION OF
JESUS AS CHRIST, pitting the TRUE believers against THE TEMPLE BELIEVERS,
just as Jesus PROPHESIED...
Jn 4:19-24 [ed]
The [Samaritan] woman saith unto [Jesus], Sir, I perceive that thou art
a prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, NOR YET AT JERUSALEM, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour COMETH, and NOW IS, when the TRUE worshippers shall worship
the Father IN SPIRIT and IN TRUTH: for the Father seeketh such to worship
him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
In fact, the entire story of Revelation is about the TEMPLE WORSHIPPERS
(which will include all of the abominable religions of the world) AGAINST
the TRUE WORSHIPPERS, who will be warning everyone to STAY AWAY FROM THAT
TEMPLE.
Yeesh, you people are stupid: You morons actually think that the children of
the PHARISEES returning to Israel to build ANOTHER TEMPLE OF ABOMINATION is
a GOOD THING.
That's how clever Satan is: He actually has you goofballs working for HIM
instead of God.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 1/2/2010"
> Fact, oh, clueless one: The Remnant to come will be "of" "father" Israel
> and "mother" Christianity, but neither, as a child is "of" his or her
> mother and father, but neither.
Paul was speaking in Romans 11:1-32 of Israel, *before* Christianity had
even come into existence!
> That's what Paul was referring to when he compared the mystery of the
> church to a man and woman becoming one flesh, and what John was referring
> to with his dualistic Remnant that will "keep the commandments of God AND
> have the testimony of Jesus Christ," etc, etc.
No, Paul referred to Israel, as can be seen here...
"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew..."
> But they're NOT "descendants of Jacob" you moron: That's the point Jesus,
> Paul, and John were all making when they discussed THE JEWS WHO SAY THEY
> ARE JEWS, AND ARE NOT, BUT DO LIE.
It's sad that you feel the need to insult people to put your points across,
Ike. That's a sign of desperation.
But the error is actually yours, because you deliberately distort the
Scriptures when they refer to literal Israel--not to some kind of convoluted
definition of Israel that makes sense only in your private little world. As
I said, the reference is to *historical* Israel. And the reason Paul
degrades the people of Israel is not to render them some weird new
definition of Israelite, but rather, to distinguish between those who are
faithful in Israel and those who are not. Paul is saying that even though
Israel presently appears to lack faith, there yet remains a remnant of
believers, until the entire nation can ultimately become a Christian nation.
randy
Terry Cross
wrote:
>
>
> You can't tell me anything, you ignorant twat.
Res ipsa loquitur, meaning "the thing itself speaks". A mind so bound
up in hostility will obviously not tolerate being told anything by
anyone.
TCross
Doug
in article <LfGdnW02LM7QYtjW...@wavecable.com>:
Revelation 13:1-4
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of
the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as
the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon
gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is
able to make war with him?
Isn't the use of the name "Israel" by the Jewish state blasphemous?
Orthodox Jews think it is inapproprate.
WHY ORTHODOX JEWS ARE OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
The so-called "State of Israel" is diametrically opposed and completely
contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the People of
Israel,...
It is therefore, our demand that the State that calls itself ISRAEL,
should cease to exist. Since this won't be done, we demand that they
cease to call themselves "Israel", because their entire being is in
complete opposition to the true People of Israel. The true People of
Israel deny them permission to call themselves by that name. The Zionist
leaders have no right to set themselves up as the representatives and
spokesmen of the true People of ISRAEL.
The head of the beast that was wounded to death, and whose deadly wound
was healed, could represent the Zionist state, which revives the ancient
Roman province of Judea.
Revelation 13:13
And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven
on the earth in the sight of men,
Isn't this what you are reading about every day?
--
Doug
bear
Only in the mind of an anti-Semites like Doug. What do you expect
from one who hates Israel, just as Satan hates them and is
continuously trying to destroy them.
>Orthodox Jews think it is inapproprate.
>
No, "some" Orthodox Jews think it is inappropriate, just like "some"
Americans think the US is evil. This is a tactic that Doug uses
frequently, make a statement as if a whole believes something when in
actuality, only a relatively small number believe what he claims.
>WHY ORTHODOX JEWS ARE OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE
>http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
>
>The so-called "State of Israel" is diametrically opposed and completely
>contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the People of
>Israel,...
It is not a "so-called State of Israel", it is a sovereign nation
recognized by the majority of nations of the world, only the Muslim
nations and those with a hatred for the Jewish people, like Doug,
think it should not be a nation.
>It is therefore, our demand that the State that calls itself ISRAEL,
>should cease to exist. Since this won't be done, we demand that they
>cease to call themselves "Israel", because their entire being is in
>complete opposition to the true People of Israel. The true People of
>Israel deny them permission to call themselves by that name. The Zionist
>leaders have no right to set themselves up as the representatives and
>spokesmen of the true People of ISRAEL.
>
Another tactic of Doug, search the internet and find a marginal group
or some individual that he can use to support his views, why not check
and see what the Creator thinks? Well, Doug does not really believe
in a Sovereign God, he places more value on the words of man than of
God and it seems that God has different ideas than Doug.
Ezekiel 28:25 'Thus says the Lord God, "When I gather the house of
Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and will
manifest My holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they
will live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.
There is nothing wishy-washy about what God said that he would do. He
began gathering His people in 1948 when Israel became a Jewish nation,
for the first time since the second century. He has not yet
manifested His holiness in them but that will come after he saves them
in the battle described in Ezekiel 38 & 39. Not for the sake of the
Jews, but for His name, it is what He promised them.
No matter how much Doug and his Muslim friends wish for it and try to
make it happen, there will always be an Israeli nation in the land God
gave to them.
Ezekiel 28:26 "They will live in it securely; and they will build
houses, plant vineyards and live securely when I execute judgments
upon all who scorn them round about them. Then they will know that I
am the Lord their God." ' "
One day, God will execute judgment "upon all who scorn them", and that
includes Doug, he will definitely know who the real God is.
>The head of the beast that was wounded to death, and whose deadly wound
>was healed, could represent the Zionist state, which revives the ancient
>Roman province of Judea.
>
Only in the dreams of Doug, like every theory he has about scripture,
he cannot prove any of it, nothing but speculation. Notice how often
Doug uses terms like, it could be, he suggests so and so, he thinks
it means, it may be, etc. That is why he has to change every
scripture from what it actually says to some ludicrous pipe dream of
his.
>Revelation 13:13
>And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven
>on the earth in the sight of men,
>
If Doug had a clue as to what Daniel was about, he would know who
makes fire come down, and it is not the Jews as he is suggesting.
>Isn't this what you are reading about every day?
No, what we are reading is nothing but pure fabrication from you and
you cannot prove any of it with unadulterated scripture. That is why
you refuse to answer questions; you know that you cannot prove what
you claim the scriptures say.
I think Doug is trying to enhance his chances of becoming the "false
prophet" for the Anti-Christ, and he has my vote.
Bear
randy
"Doug"
randy
>> But the error is actually yours, because you deliberately distort the
>> Scriptures when they refer to literal Israel--not to some kind of
>> convoluted definition of Israel that makes sense only in your private
>> little world. As I said, the reference is to *historical* Israel. And
>> the reason Paul degrades the people of Israel is not to render them some
>> weird new definition of Israelite, but rather, to distinguish between
>> those who are faithful in Israel and those who are not. Paul is saying
>> that even though Israel presently appears to lack faith, there yet
>> remains a remnant of believers, until the entire nation can ultimately
>> become a Christian nation.
> Isn't the use of the name "Israel" by the Jewish state blasphemous?
> Orthodox Jews think it is inapproprate.
I don't care if Orthodox Jews think they are the "real" Jews, and think that
they have the right to define what can be called "Israel." In fact, I
believe *God* calls the State Israel, and the people who live there
"Israelis." And I think that the true Israelites are not just the Orthodox
Jews, but rather those Jews who are destined to become Christians.
randy
randy
"Terry Cross"
> You can't tell me anything, you ignorant twat.
"Res ipsa loquitur, meaning "the thing itself speaks". A mind so bound
up in hostility will obviously not tolerate being told anything by
anyone."
Put another way...
James 3: Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and
brackish? Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No
more can salt water yield fresh.
randy
Doug
in article <692dnTe8Sv3bpNXW...@wavecable.com>:
The Jewish state seems to fit John's prophecy about the beast having a
head that suffered a deadly would, that was healed.
Revelation 13:2
And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as
the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon
gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
The animals here are the same as in Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 7.
Babylon was the lion; (Iraq), Persia was the bear; (Iran), Greece was the
leopard, with four heads; (Macedonia, Syria and Mesopotamia, Asia or
Turkey, and Egypt), Rome was the terrible beast; (Italy, Spain, France,
England, Germany, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, most other countries in
Europe, and all the Mediterranean world.)
So the beast in Revelation can be identified with "western civilization"
and has dominated the entire world by colonization, and by the spread of
religion, philosophy, capitalism, communism, democracy, science and
technology, modern weapons, etc. to all nations.
Almost all these influences have their roots in the western world, which
in turn draws its culture from the ancient empires of Babylon, Persia,
Greece and the hellenistic culture, and Rome, represented by the lion,
bear, leopard, and the fourth beast in Daniel 7.
The head with the deadly wound was likely the province of Judea, which
was part of the fourth beast of Daniel 7. Its destruction by the Romans
in 70 AD was the deadly wound; its revival as the Jewish state in 1948 is
the deadly wound being healed.
Revelation 13:3-4
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they
worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to
make war with him?
The kingdoms and governments represented by the beast are those of modern
nations, and many of them have modern armies, and some are armed with
nuclear weapons.
Revelation 13:5
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome
them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
The beast seems to represent worldly society, and its philosophy, its
politics, its economy, it military power. The saints are overcome by it,
for example, because most have been deceived into thinking the Jewish
state is indeed "Israel." Perhaps a better term for it would be "pseudo-
Israel."
The name "Israel" was given to Jacob by God, in Genesis 32:28. Jacob was
a prophet, so is included in the foundation of the church, with the
apostles, and all the prophets, Ephesians 2:20. The name "Israel" is
included in the promises that have been inherited by Christ. Its use by
the Jewish state is indeed blasphemous, as it belongs to "a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that
ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvellous light." [1 Peter 2:9] This does not fit the
Zionist state.
There is a clear warning for those who worship the beast in Revelation
14.
Revelation 14:9-12
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or
in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured
out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and
they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and
whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Those who take the label "Israel" should bring forth the fruits Israel
was intended to bear, and "shew forth the praises of him who hath called
you out of darkness into his marvellous light."
--
Doug
bear
I know that Doug does not have the guts to answer my questions and/or
respond to the points made, and that is ok because the only reason
that I respond to his idiotic posts is to make someone that is not
that familiar with scripture or his writings, aware of his blasphemy
of God's word and in actuality, promoting the agenda of Satan, either
consciously or unconsciously.
Doug cannot refute any thing in the Bible, unless, one is willing to
just take his word for it. Numerous individuals have proved that many
times. I think Fred is giving him too much credit when he
calls him Satan, he is not that smart. OTOH, if one reads his
writings and compares them with the actions of Satin, I
think a good case could be made for him being one of Satan's flunkies.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful
workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself
as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will
be according to their deeds.
V13-15 fits Doug quite favorably in my opinion.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the
field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed,
has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
Notice how Satan changed what God actually said, "from any tree of the
garden you may eat freely", to, "you shall not eat from any tree of
the garden".
Genesis 2:16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree
of the garden you may eat freely..."
Pure deception, the same as Doug uses in his writings.
Here is another example, God said, "�you will surely die" and Satan's
response was, "you surely will not die". Exactly the same methods as
Doug employs.
Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely
die."
Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
How many times does Doug quote scripture and change perhaps just one
word that changes the meaning, or quotes one verse out of context to
promote it meaning something completely opposite of how it was
intended.
I am convinced that is why he refuses to discuss scripture with anyone
that insists upon him proving his views with unadulterated scripture,
he is fully aware that he cannot do so, it would destroy what he is
trying to accomplish, and in my opinion, it is definitely the desires
of Satan.
Bear
Doug
article <9k3hk5pisct5k3ab4...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
Scripture says, all those who believe in Christ, are "the children of
Abraham" by faith.
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham.
Scripture says the true "Israel" does not include all of those who are
"of Israel," or who are Jews by race, or who practice Judaism. It is only
those who believe in Christ who are the children of God. And the same
applies to the descendants of Abraham; the children of Abraham, according
to Paul, and the gospel, are not "the children of the flesh," but those
who receive the promises through faith in Christ, who was the promised
seed of Abraham through Isaac.
Romans 9:6-8
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not
all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children:
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed.
These are great truths, that the world denies. Dispensationalism follows
the view of the world, rather than what the scripture says above.
Phillip Mauro wrote:
<quote>
It is appropriate here to point out that one of the glaring errors of
'dispensational teaching' is the failure to recognize what the New
Testament plainly reveals, namely that names which God temporarily gave
to the shadowy and typical things of the Old Covenant, belong properly
and eternally to the corresponding realities of the New Covenant. Thus we
are given the proper meaning of 'Jew' (Rom 2:28,29); 'Israel' (Rom 9:6;
Gal 6:16); 'Jerusalem' (Gal 4:26); 'Seed of Abraham' (Gal 3:29);
'Sion' (1 Pet 2:6; Heb 12:22; Rom 9:33). Likewise it is made known that
according to the New Covenant meaning, 'the tribes of Jacob' are those
who are Jews inwardly, that is to say, the entire household of faith
(James 1:1; Acts 26:7).
</quote>
[Phillip Mauro (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p.81), quoted at: http://
www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9|21|180]
In contrast, dispensationalist writers seek to include unbelieving Jews
as "the people of God." Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, for example, sees Israel
as part of the church rather than the church as a part of Israel.
<quote>
The relationship of the Church to the New Covenant is the same as its
relationship to the Abrahamic, the Land, and the Davidic covenants. God
promised the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant (as amplified by
the Land and Davidic covenants) exclusively to Israel. However, the
blessing aspect (amplified by the New Covenant) was to include the
Gentiles. The Church enjoys the spiritual blessings of these covenants,
not the material and physical benefits. The physical promises still
belong to Israel and will be fulfilled exclusively with Israel,
especially those involving the land.
Covenant Theology assumes a theology of replacement, in which the Church
replaces Israel. The New Testament speaks of Gentiles partaking in
Jewish spiritual blessings, but not of taking over those blessings from
Israel.
</quote>
[Israelology: the Missing Link in Systematic Theology, by Arnold G.
Fruchtenbaum Th.M., Ph.D. p. 727.]
Another dispensationalist author who sees that the Old Testament
prophecies given to Israel are applied to the church in the New Testament
yet argues that unbelieving Jews remain "the people of God," is Douglas
J. Moo. He wrote:
<quote>
ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH
Some brief comments must now he made on this issue, which we purposely
set to one side in our exegesis of the New Testament texts. In dealing
with these texts, we have found places in which language and prophecies
that have reference to Israel in the Old Testament (e.g., the
eschatological trumpet, Antichrist and, most obviously, the Tribulation
itself) are applied to the church. If of course, it were to be concluded,
on the basis of a thorough study of other texts, that a rigid distinction
between Israel and the church were necessary, some of our conclusions
would have to be reevaluated. However, it seems that the application to
the church of the Old Testament prophecies given to Israel is not at all
unusual in the New Testament--see, for one of the clearest instances, the
use of Jeremiah 31:33ff. in Hebrews 8 and 10. On the other hand, it is
important that Israel and the church not be completely merged: Paul
clearly expects a future for racial Israel (Rom. 9-11). What is
important, we would suggest, is to distinguish carefully between
prophecies directed to Israel as a nation (and which must be fulfilled in
a national Israel) and prophecies directed to Israel as the people of God
(which can be fulfilled in the people of God--a people that includes the
church!). It should be noted that such an approach is not allegorical or
nonliteral; it simply calls upon the interpreter to recognize the
intended scope of any specific prophecy. It is our contention, then, that
the Great Tribulation predicted for Israel by, e.g., Daniel, is directed
to Israel as the people of God. It can therefore be fulfilled in the
people of God, which includes the church as well as Israel.
</quote>
[Douglas J. Moo, The case for the posttribulation rapture position in:
Three views on the Rapture: pre-, mid-, or post-Tribulation? Gleason
Leonard Archer, ed. Zondervan, 1996. p. 205-207.]
The problem with the above writers, IMO, is that they reject the
statement of Paul that "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his." They desperately want to include Jews!
Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his.
How can any unbelieving Jew (or Gentile) have the Spirit of Christ? John
called denial that Christ has come in the flesh the spirit of antichrist.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
--
Doug
bear
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:12:02 -0600, bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <9k3hk5pisct5k3ab4...@4ax.com>:
>
><snip>
>
>Scripture says, all those who believe in Christ, are "the children of
>Abraham" by faith.
>
Just more of Doug's preaching which is all he can do. He certainly
cannot prove his bogus doctrine by answering questions.
Thommadura
> response was, "you surely will not die". Exactly the same methods as
> Doug employs.
>
> Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
> shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely
> die."
>
> Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
>
> How many times does Doug quote scripture and change perhaps just one
> word that changes the meaning, or quotes one verse out of context to
> promote it meaning something completely opposite of how it was
> intended.
>
> I am convinced that is why he refuses to discuss scripture with anyone
> that insists upon him proving his views with unadulterated scripture,
> he is fully aware that he cannot do so, it would destroy what he is
> trying to accomplish, and in my opinion, it is definitely the desires
> of Satan.
Anyone who places any credibility in scripture - must therefore accept
ALL scripture - since all are equally proven.
However - there is no doubt that GENESIS contains things that are
completely wrong about the universe and the earth.
If god said that you could freely eat from any tree of the garden - then
that kllls the story of original sin
Of course the christ also kills his own story as well
30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment
is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
31 "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.
Thommadura
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:12:02 -0600, bear<tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
> article<9k3hk5pisct5k3ab4...@4ax.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> Scripture says, all those who believe in Christ, are "the children of
> Abraham" by faith.
Scripture also says
That you can climb to a high place and see all the kingdoms of the earth
THat the moon and the sun are Lights
THat the sun moves over the earth during the day and then HURRIES back
at night to the place where it must start again in the morning
That the earth is built on pillars and is unmovable in the sky.
Scripture includes the directions on how to PROPERLY sell your daughter
into slavery and the following fine instructions to his armies:
Samuel 15:3
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do
not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey."
Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE
Genocide, murder or any killing that is not necessary to defend another
person's life is not justified.
Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
Numbers 31:17-18
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves".
KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the young
virgin women for yourselves
YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
Psalm 137:8-9
"O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they
be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
Not only - take the little ones and dash them against a rocks - but then
CELEBRATE killing them.
And anyone who would claim that scripture is meaningful in anyway simply
has not read it.
Thommadura
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:03:23 -0600, Doug<t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:12:02 -0600, bear<tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>> article<9k3hk5pisct5k3ab4...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Scripture says, all those who believe in Christ, are "the children of
>> Abraham" by faith.
>>
>
> Just more of Doug's preaching which is all he can do. He certainly
> cannot prove his bogus doctrine by answering questions.
>
> I know that Doug does not have the guts to answer my questions and/or
> respond to the points made, and that is ok because the only reason
> that I respond to his idiotic posts is to make someone that is not
> that familiar with scripture or his writings, aware of his blasphemy
> of God's word and in actuality, promoting the agenda of Satan, either
> consciously or unconsciously.
>
> Doug cannot refute any thing in the Bible,
Nonsense
THere are LOTS of things that you can refute in the bible
The bible is a book of beliefs - that normally can be contradicted by
other things in the bible.
For example
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth
he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did
tempt Abraham..."
Or - another
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child
unto the day of her death"
Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul"
Just read genesis to see some of them
THe moon is NOT a light - that is refuted already - and humans have been
there to prove it too.
THe earth is NOT stationary and unmovable in the sky - and built on
pillars. The sun does not move over the earth during the day and then
HURRIES back at night to where it must rise again in the morning.
According to the bible
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory
of them."
Well - to see ALL of the kingdoms of the world from a high place - the
earth cannot be a sphere - but we KNOW it is - so that statement in the
bible is refuted as well.
Tell me - based on the so called EYE witness testimony of the gospels -
what were the christs last THREE words before he died on the cross.
I note that there can only be ONE correct answer - yet there are several
different ones in the Gospel.
Among them
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the
ghost."
John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It
is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Now - the religion is based on the ressurection of the christ
WHO was there when he rose from the dead - NO ONE.
Now - who FOUND the tomb empty first. Again - there is ONLY one correct
answer - but the eye witness testimony gives us several different
versions as well.
Of course - the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed - not even then.
the Orchid seed is smaller -and they existed back then too.
Doug
wrote in article <4b48d404$0$22545$607e...@cv.net>:
> On 1/9/2010 1:03 PM, Doug wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:12:02 -0600, bear<tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>> in article<9k3hk5pisct5k3ab4...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Scripture says, all those who believe in Christ, are "the children of
>> Abraham" by faith.
>
>
> Scripture also says
>
> That you can climb to a high place and see all the kingdoms of the earth
> THat the moon and the sun are Lights
> THat the sun moves over the earth during the day and then HURRIES back
> at night to the place where it must start again in the morning That the
> earth is built on pillars and is unmovable in the sky.
>
> Scripture includes the directions on how to PROPERLY sell your daughter
> into slavery and the following fine instructions to his armies:
>
> Samuel 15:3
> "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do
> not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and
> sheep, camel and donkey."
The previous verse says:
1 Samuel 15:2
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel,
how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
An account of the event referred to here is contained in Exodus. The
people of Amalek were descendants of Abraham, but apparently they were
rather bloodthirsty, and hated Israel, and so they were appointed to be
destroyed.
Exodus 17:8-14
8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with
Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God
in mine hand.
10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and
Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel
prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
12 But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under
him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one
on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were
steady until the going down of the sun.
13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the
sword.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and
rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the
remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
This is what Saul was instructed to carry out, which would have fulfilled
the prophecy. But Saul did not like the commandment given to him, and so
he did not kill the animals, and the king, I think. He failed the test,
and was removed from being king.
>
>
> Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE Genocide, murder or any
> killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not
> justified.
> Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
It is much more barbaric to do it one person at a time, isn't t? Not like
simply pressing a button, dropping some bombs, and flying away... no need
to even look at the carnage. Or sitting at a computer somewhere safe in
the US, looking for victims on a monitor, firing a missile from a drone.
Afterwards, go home for dinner with the family.
>
>
> Numbers 31:17-18
> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children
> that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves".
>
>
> KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the young
> virgin women for yourselves
> YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
>
Would you prefer "cluster bombs"? They kill and maim kids and parents
indiscriminately. Isn't that more fair?
>
> Psalm 137:8-9
>
> "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
> they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be
> who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
>
>
> Not only - take the little ones and dash them against a rocks - but then
> CELEBRATE killing them.
>
>
> And anyone who would claim that scripture is meaningful in anyway simply
> has not read it.
The "daughter of Babylon" can be interpreted as symbolic of false
religion, a bit like "daughter of Zion" is used for the holy city of the
saints.
Her "little ones" may represent false doctrines and superstitions that
are to be destroyed. When it is wrong beliefs that are to be dispelled,
there is no room for half-measures. Here is an example: In the old
cosmology of Aristotle, there were 57 spheres, that were invented to
explain the motions of the sun and moon and planets. Suppose, when the
old cosmology was overthrown, and the invisible spheres abolished, the
astronomers had decided not to get rid of them all, because they
considered that to be too radical. Let's suppose it was decided at least
to keep some. How would that work? What if the spheres for the sun and
moon had been spared, and only the planetary speres and the rigid
firmament were abolished? Where would we be? Then the sun and moon would
be revolving around the earth, but the planets around the sun.
Hmm..
Or, suppose all of Aristotle's spheres were abolished, except the rigid
firmament, that carried around the stars? In that case, we would
understand the solar system, but know nothing about the Milky Way or any
other galaxy. Wouldn't it be far wiser to be consistent, and follow
truth, where ever it leads?
If the "little ones" that are smashed on a rock simply represent all the
false ideas and superstitions of men, like the planetary spheres, then
the psalm would indeed be quite meaningful.
--
Doug
Thommadura
Killing women and children is still genocide - and that practice is
despicable.
> This is what Saul was instructed to carry out, which would have fulfilled
> the prophecy. But Saul did not like the commandment given to him, and so
> he did not kill the animals, and the king, I think. He failed the test,
> and was removed from being king.
So - you are saying that Saul was more moral than your god - I agree
>
>>
>>
>> Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE Genocide, murder or any
>> killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not
>> justified.
>> Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
>
> It is much more barbaric to do it one person at a time, isn't t?
I never said that - now did I
Now of course YOU change the subject below too
Not like
> simply pressing a button, dropping some bombs, and flying away... no need
> to even look at the carnage. Or sitting at a computer somewhere safe in
> the US, looking for victims on a monitor, firing a missile from a drone.
> Afterwards, go home for dinner with the family.
That the action was barbaric is not changed by present day situations
either. However - to date - the US has not advocated the wiping out of
ALL population of a country.
>
>>
>>
>> Numbers 31:17-18
>> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
>> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children
>> that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves".
>>
>>
>> KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the young
>> virgin women for yourselves
>> YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
>>
>
> Would you prefer "cluster bombs"? They kill and maim kids and parents
> indiscriminately. Isn't that more fair?
Another change of subject
But it does NOT change the facts I pointed out.
>
>>
>> Psalm 137:8-9
>>
>> "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
>> they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be
>> who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
>>
>>
>> Not only - take the little ones and dash them against a rocks - but then
>> CELEBRATE killing them.
>>
>>
>> And anyone who would claim that scripture is meaningful in anyway simply
>> has not read it.
>
> The "daughter of Babylon" can be interpreted as symbolic of false
> religion, a bit like "daughter of Zion" is used for the holy city of the
> saints.
It is always nice to hear theists SPIN simple statements when they
cannot justify the actual words the way they are.
TO date - there are no TRUE religions - that have been proven so your
claim is worthless anyway
Doug
wrote in article <4b494435$0$22520$607e...@cv.net>:
Still, God's plan is for them to come back to life.
>
>
>
>
>
>> This is what Saul was instructed to carry out, which would have
>> fulfilled the prophecy. But Saul did not like the commandment given to
>> him, and so he did not kill the animals, and the king, I think. He
>> failed the test, and was removed from being king.
>
>
> So - you are saying that Saul was more moral than your god - I agree
>
He thought he knew better than God. Go figure.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE Genocide, murder or any
>>> killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not
>>> justified.
>>> Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
>>
>> It is much more barbaric to do it one person at a time, isn't t?
>
> I never said that - now did I
>
> Now of course YOU change the subject below too
>
Ha ha! That's ironic, since your previous response was hardly on topic,
was it?
>
>
> Not like
>> simply pressing a button, dropping some bombs, and flying away... no
>> need to even look at the carnage. Or sitting at a computer somewhere
>> safe in the US, looking for victims on a monitor, firing a missile from
>> a drone. Afterwards, go home for dinner with the family.
>
>
> That the action was barbaric is not changed by present day situations
> either. However - to date - the US has not advocated the wiping out of
> ALL population of a country.
Just tried to wipe out a couple of cities, remember?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Numbers 31:17-18
>>> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
>>> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
>>> children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
>>> yourselves".
>>>
>>>
>>> KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the
>>> young virgin women for yourselves
>>> YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
>>>
>>>
>> Would you prefer "cluster bombs"? They kill and maim kids and parents
>> indiscriminately. Isn't that more fair?
>
> Another change of subject
Another ironic response.
>
> But it does NOT change the facts I pointed out.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Psalm 137:8-9
>>>
>>> "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
>>> they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be
>>> who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
>>>
>>>
>>> Not only - take the little ones and dash them against a rocks - but
>>> then CELEBRATE killing them.
>>>
>>>
>>> And anyone who would claim that scripture is meaningful in anyway
>>> simply has not read it.
>>
>> The "daughter of Babylon" can be interpreted as symbolic of false
>> religion, a bit like "daughter of Zion" is used for the holy city of
>> the saints.
>
>
> It is always nice to hear theists SPIN simple statements when they
> cannot justify the actual words the way they are.
>
> TO date - there are no TRUE religions - that have been proven so your
> claim is worthless anyway
Atheists have a similar approach to scripture to that of the
dispensationalists, a literal one.
"The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life" --Paul.
--
Doug
Thommadura
Since YOU have not proven a god even exist - you have no way of know if
a god is even capable of planning anything - so that is still nonsense
However - regardless - killing innocents is still wrong - and he would
be STONED to death as a murderer under his own laws for doing that.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is what Saul was instructed to carry out, which would have
>>> fulfilled the prophecy. But Saul did not like the commandment given to
>>> him, and so he did not kill the animals, and the king, I think. He
>>> failed the test, and was removed from being king.
>>
>>
>> So - you are saying that Saul was more moral than your god - I agree
>>
>
> He thought he knew better than God. Go figure.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE Genocide, murder or any
>>>> killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not
>>>> justified.
>>>> Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
>>>
>>> It is much more barbaric to do it one person at a time, isn't t?
>>
>> I never said that - now did I
>>
>> Now of course YOU change the subject below too
>>
>
> Ha ha! That's ironic, since your previous response was hardly on topic,
> was it?
ROFL -= can't address what is said in the BIBLE itself - I thought so.
>
>>
>>
>> Not like
>>> simply pressing a button, dropping some bombs, and flying away... no
>>> need to even look at the carnage. Or sitting at a computer somewhere
>>> safe in the US, looking for victims on a monitor, firing a missile from
>>> a drone. Afterwards, go home for dinner with the family.
>>
>>
>> That the action was barbaric is not changed by present day situations
>> either. However - to date - the US has not advocated the wiping out of
>> ALL population of a country.
>
> Just tried to wipe out a couple of cities, remember?
Which is still NOT the genocide of a complete nation - no matter how YOU
stretch it.
ANd you still have not changed that fact that it is a barbaric act
ordered supposedly by your god.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Numbers 31:17-18
>>>> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
>>>> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
>>>> children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
>>>> yourselves".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the
>>>> young virgin women for yourselves
>>>> YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Would you prefer "cluster bombs"? They kill and maim kids and parents
>>> indiscriminately. Isn't that more fair?
>>
>> Another change of subject
>
> Another ironic response.
From YOU - you did not address what YOUR god supposedly did - you
changed the subject
>
>>
>> But it does NOT change the facts I pointed out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Psalm 137:8-9
>>>>
>>>> "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall
>>>> they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be
>>>> who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not only - take the little ones and dash them against a rocks - but
>>>> then CELEBRATE killing them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And anyone who would claim that scripture is meaningful in anyway
>>>> simply has not read it.
>>>
>>> The "daughter of Babylon" can be interpreted as symbolic of false
>>> religion, a bit like "daughter of Zion" is used for the holy city of
>>> the saints.
>>
>>
>> It is always nice to hear theists SPIN simple statements when they
>> cannot justify the actual words the way they are.
>>
>> TO date - there are no TRUE religions - that have been proven so your
>> claim is worthless anyway
>
> Atheists have a similar approach to scripture to that of the
> dispensationalists, a literal one.
Of course - theists like to put SPIN on even simple words - so they can
justify their outlandish inerpretations - which have changed over the
centuries as more and more of their nonsense is proven to be in error.
Scripture is NOTHING more than religious writings - the overwhelming
majority of which even YOU dismiss
But Scripture does say that the christ was NOT a god - was not the son
of a god - and did not die on a cross as well.
Scripture also says
John 5:30-31
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is
just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
Onbviously - someone who can do NOTHING is not a god - which was
confirmed again by someone who supposedly saw the christ as an apostle
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God
1 JOhn 4:12
No one has ever seen god
>
> "The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life" --Paul.
Sorry - but there is NO such thing as spirit to give life that is proven
to exist
Try again
The Doctor
Thommadura typical Philistine.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Born 29 Jan 1969 Redhill,Surrey,England UK
Doug
wrote in article <hicouh$i0d$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>:
When they scoff and sneer because they find something in the Bible that
seems to make no sense, it often turns out they simply didn't understand
it. The atheists insist on literalism, like the dispensationalists, who
also promote a "Philistine" doctrine, and deny that the Christian church
is the real Israel. They adore "pseudo-Israel."
--
Doug
randy
"Doug"
randy
>> I don't care if Orthodox Jews think they are the "real" Jews, and think
>> that they have the right to define what can be called "Israel." In fact,
>> I believe *God* calls the State Israel, and the people who live there
>> "Israelis." And I think that the true Israelites are not just the
>> Orthodox Jews, but rather those Jews who are destined to become
>> Christians.
> The Jewish state seems to fit John's prophecy about the beast having a
> head that suffered a deadly would, that was healed.
Yes, there might be a correlation between John's view of antichristianity
and the then-current state of Israel. But I can't say this has much to do
with *today's* Israeli State. In John's day the focus was upon a Jerusalem
that had been under the Law, that had religious leaders who put Jesus to
death (indirectly, through the Roman state). There are therefore many
prophecy interpreters who believe that *Rome* fulfils the prophecy of the
"beast." Yet again, there are those who might see New York as the
fulfillment of the beast. ;)
We may not be able to solve all of these riddles, contained in the book of
Revelation, but we can be sure that antichristianity is part of it all.
Wherever there is opposition to the Christian gospel, we have the spirit of
Antichrist. I personally believe that John identified the beast as something
that develops out of the old Roman Empire, where Christ was crucified. But I
have no idea what any current form of antichristianity will take. I say this
as a "futurist," understanding that not all here share my belief in
"futurism."
> The name "Israel" was given to Jacob by God, in Genesis 32:28. Jacob was
> a prophet, so is included in the foundation of the church, with the
> apostles, and all the prophets, Ephesians 2:20. The name "Israel" is
> included in the promises that have been inherited by Christ. Its use by
> the Jewish state is indeed blasphemous, as it belongs to "a chosen
> generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that
> ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
> darkness into his marvellous light." [1 Peter 2:9] This does not fit the
> Zionist state.
I think all nations have names. My country is named the USA, and another
country is France, another Israel. Having names has little to do with how
they are "supposed" to be named. They simply are named what they are.
But we're discussing how "Israel" fits in with biblical prophecy. Even
though the nation Israel is not currently Christian, it still fits in with
biblical prophecy, because it is destined to *become* a Christian country.
Promises exist for the State of Israel, because Abraham was promised a
posterity forever.
Let me add that Christianity is not supposed to be segregated by
nationalities. We certainly may reside in different nations, and have
different ethnic backgrounds, but spiritually, we are to all be united in
the Christian faith. In the current age national differences and the
existence of diverse nations persists. And this has no bearing on our
Christian unity. Christian unity transcends these artificial human
boundaries.What it will be like in the "new creation" I have no idea! There
may or may not continue to be nations. I just don't know.
randy
Thommadura
No - it is the theist who have to SPIN simple words - to get a meaning
they want
John 1:18 No man has seen god
John 4:12 No one has ever seen god
Both phrases are OBVIOUS to all
Doug
wrote in article <4b49cf71$0$4980$607e...@cv.net>:
When they are raised back to life, I suppose that will be "proof" to many!
>
> However - regardless - killing innocents is still wrong - and he would
> be STONED to death as a murderer under his own laws for doing that.
>
Actually God is the origin of life. But maybe you have not understood
that.
Psalm 36:9
For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is what Saul was instructed to carry out, which would have
>>>> fulfilled the prophecy. But Saul did not like the commandment given
>>>> to him, and so he did not kill the animals, and the king, I think. He
>>>> failed the test, and was removed from being king.
>>>
>>>
>>> So - you are saying that Saul was more moral than your god - I agree
>>>
>>>
>> He thought he knew better than God. Go figure.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Kill children and infants - this is GENOCIDE Genocide, murder or any
>>>>> killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not
>>>>> justified.
>>>>> Your god advocated the wiping out of whole populations of people.
>>>>
>>>> It is much more barbaric to do it one person at a time, isn't t?
>>>
>>> I never said that - now did I
>>>
>>> Now of course YOU change the subject below too
>>>
>>>
>> Ha ha! That's ironic, since your previous response was hardly on topic,
>> was it?
>
> ROFL -= can't address what is said in the BIBLE itself - I thought so.
>
The Israelites were told not to make covenants with the inhabitants of
the promised land, but to destroy their altars, break their images, and
cut down their groves. [Exodus 34:12-16]
There is a metaphor in this for the church, and for Christians. I suggest
it is meant to teach us that we should not compromise with the spiritual
enemies of God, and seducing spirits of the world.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Not like
>>>> simply pressing a button, dropping some bombs, and flying away... no
>>>> need to even look at the carnage. Or sitting at a computer somewhere
>>>> safe in the US, looking for victims on a monitor, firing a missile
>>>> from a drone. Afterwards, go home for dinner with the family.
>>>
>>>
>>> That the action was barbaric is not changed by present day situations
>>> either. However - to date - the US has not advocated the wiping out of
>>> ALL population of a country.
>>
>> Just tried to wipe out a couple of cities, remember?
>
> Which is still NOT the genocide of a complete nation - no matter how YOU
> stretch it.
>
> ANd you still have not changed that fact that it is a barbaric act
> ordered supposedly by your god.
Yes, there is lots of colourful imagery in the Bible. In the NT the
effect of gory stories in the Bible is pictured by "turning waters to
blood."
In 2 Kings 3 there is an account of a battle in which the outcome hinged
on people mistaking water for blood. The kings of Israel, Judah and Edom
went out into the wilderness with their armies in order to punish the
king of Moab, who had stopped paying tribute to the Israelite king. But
they ran short of water. So they called for the prophet Elisha.
Elisha advised them to make ditches in the valley. During the night, the
ditches filled up with water. In the morning the Moabite army looked over
the valley, and the reflection of the red sky on the water appeared to
them like pools of blood.
2 Kings 3:21-23
And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight
against them, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and
upward, and stood in the border.
And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water,
and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood:
And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain, and they have
smitten one another: now therefore, Moab, to the spoil.
Assuming there had been a battle, the Moabites approached the camp of the
Israelites, expecting to find them wasted, but instead were slaughtered
themselves.
Atheists and skeptics who reject the gospel are much like those
unfortunate Moabites, who mistook water for blood. They view the truths
of the gospel which Christians accept, as notions unfit for human
consumption! The gospel which is as cool, clean, fresh drinking water to
believers, is as distasteful as blood to them. Several facts make the
scriptures unpalatable for people; the flawed cosmology that resulted
from changes made to the OT by the hellenistic king Antiochus IV and his
agents in the 2nd century BC is one reason. Another reason is that the
scriptures record miracles and prophecies. Another is their own lack of
imagination, and a literal reading of passages in the Bible that are
symbolic, or written in poetic style. For these or several other reasons,
many view the Bible and the message of the gospel not as clean,
refreshing, life-giving water, but as blood that they cannot bring
themselves to drink!
This could be what is pictured by a prophecy about the 2 witnesses. Jesus
identified the Spirit of God and the scriptures as two things which
testify of him, and one who testifies is a witness. One of the powers of
the 2 witnesses is to "turn the waters to blood" (Rev 11:6). Jesus
referred to the gospel as "living water" (John 4:10).
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Numbers 31:17-18
>>>>> "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
>>>>> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
>>>>> children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
>>>>> yourselves".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> KILL every make - even the little ones (Children) = but keep the
>>>>> young virgin women for yourselves
>>>>> YOU cannot explain this away as "love"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Would you prefer "cluster bombs"? They kill and maim kids and parents
>>>> indiscriminately. Isn't that more fair?
>>>
>>> Another change of subject
>>
>> Another ironic response.
>
>
> From YOU - you did not address what YOUR god supposedly did - you
> changed the subject
>
See above. The "living waters" appear as unpalatable as blood to some.
The scripture says those who believe the gospel are the sons of God.
>
> Scripture also says
>
> John 5:30-31
>
> By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is
> just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
>
> "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
>
> Onbviously - someone who can do NOTHING is not a god - which was
> confirmed again by someone who supposedly saw the christ as an apostle
> John 1:18
> No one has ever seen God
>
> 1 JOhn 4:12
>
> No one has ever seen god
>
I think some stories in the OT are corruptions introduced in the
hellenistic age. There is one about the Israelites going up the mountain
and seeing God, which contradicts what John wrote, above.
Exodus 24:9-11
9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it
were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven
in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand:
also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
It looks like a corruption from the hellenistic age, when Jews tried to
adapt the scripture to the cosmology of the Greeks. The "paved work of a
sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness"
alludes to the rigid heaven of the Greeks, which the identified with
Zeus.
These cosmological corruptions were foretold in one of the prophecies of
Daniel, and were initiated during the reign of Antiochus IV. There is
mention of it in 1 Maccabees.
1 Maccabees 3:48
And laid open the book of the law, wherein the heathen had sought to
paint the likeness of their images.
They introduced passages such as the story in Exodus quoted above, and
changed scripture to identify the 'raqia' with the rigid heaven or
firmament. Before, it referred to the earth's crust.
>
>
>
>
>> "The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life" --Paul.
>
>
> Sorry - but there is NO such thing as spirit to give life that is proven
> to exist
>
> Try again
--
Doug
Fred Thomas
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:58:27 -0500, Thommadura<tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote in article<4b49cf71$0$4980$607e...@cv.net>:
>
>
Thommadura
NO PROOF - of a god or the actions of a god
Dismissed
But maybe you have not understood
> that.
Since no god is proven to exist - in any way - maybe you are just making
that one up too!
And since no god is proven to exist - until a god is proven to exist -
or can prove its own existence - no one can provide an accurate
definition of what a god is - what a god can do - or what a god wants
SO I reject the rest of your nonsense
The fact is - since ALL religions are EQUALLY proven (Ie - not at all)
- I can use the scripture of other religions to counter what your
scripture says
So - we do have egyptian writings from before 4000 BCE and Egyptian
paintings from before 15,000 BCE - proving that the Universe was NOT
created by your god in 4000 BCE or so as the timeline in the bible says.
WE also have scripture that says that the god Brahma created the
Universe for the god Vishnu - billions of years ago - which happens to
coincide much closer to the actual age of the universe. More important
- it establishes that the Universe already existed when the hebrew claim
it was not yet created.
Before X-Rays were actually proven to exist - people could have made all
sort of claims for them - but now that we KNOW what x-rays are - we know
what they are able to do.
If someone insisted that X-Rays created the earth - and wanted us to
worship them - it might have been believed by the ancients - but now we
know that x-rays are not capable of creation.
Until you can PROVE what a god IS - claiming what a god can do - rests
on what a god MIGHT BE - and nothing is proven.
bear
Be careful Fred, I am close by.
Bear
ThomM
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:33:38 -0500, Fred Thomas <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On 1/10/2010 1:11 PM, Doug wrote:
> >> wrote in article<4b49cf71$0$4980$607ed...@cv.net>:
>
> >ROTHL!!!
>
> Be careful Fred, I am close by.
>
> Bear
Which does not change anything
No god is proven to be real - and using the bible _ I can quote just
as many statements against the christ - even some said supposedly by
him - as thiests say otherwise
No - the bible contradicts itself on that one - since the christ did
not fulfill the prophecies - NOTE - you claim only ONE god
1` - John 1:18 no man has lived who has seen god
2 - John 4:21 No one has seen god
But quote(supposedly of course - it is a MYTH) the christ
John 5:30-31 (New International Version)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is
just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
Oviously - a god that cannot do anything by himself is not an almighty
god!
Fred Thomas
bear
Thanks Fred, but no thanks, I cannot stand the taste of beer. I would
accept a Bailey's Irish Creme though.
Bear