Krimsa.
Let me see if I understand you. I take it your position is: my statement being in error:.... with two opposing beliefs, we can both be right at the same time? Or are you saying we can be both wrong at the same time?

I believe in Jesus the savior. She doesnt. There is always room to change position, but no middle of the road exists. She is free to chose her position and has. Have as I. Where is this unfair. Why is this troubling to you. You cannot mean I should force her to change her position? Perhaps you are saying God should? What are you actually saying?

I am new here...what is your actual position so I can respond in kind.

My position is that you are lingering under some kind of assertion that JB MUST be wrong or you MUST be right. I am telling you that this frame of mind is not conducive to growth or expansion of thought. I myself do not believe in a mythical godhead and neither does JB from what I gather from her posts. Does that make us both wrong and you right because we choose to question and disagree? What about the OP? Is she wrong for questioning god's big plan here on earth? I don’t think so.

I am asking that you step back and hear us all out and what we have to say before jumping to any wild based conclusions or pronouncements of “right and wrong”. Fair enough?

I always want to be fair. As I assume do you. I never throw around wild accusations. Show me just one accusation, and I will apologize. Lets both be fair.
I do make statements though, hopefully factual ones. These statements are open to criticism. Show me any error in my thinking and I will correct it.
So......
I maintain that one of us is in error. The issue at hand, the issue you dispute with me, is an either/or issue. Where was I wrong or unfair.
I simply said one of us is in error. I am not offended that you evidently, by both your replies and your tone, have implied that I am the one in the wrong, have I? Nor should you be offended. No offense is intended. We are adults. And we are all here to decide what the truth of the matter is. This is both fair and clear, level headed thinking.
So.....friends?

Fair enough. I never intended to argue and you are clearly misinterpreting my position on this matter. This can happen understandably in the confines of an electronic forum setting where there is no body language, nor voice inflection to give physical quos to someone.

My point which I think you understand is I do not feel it is wise or a good idea to simply decide, you are right and I am wrong or vice versa. I do hope that you stick around and listen to the upcoming debate. I think I was most concerned by the comment because to me it sounded like you had thrown your arms up in exasperation and were leaving on this note of presumed infallibility. That would not be good.

I rather enjoy the debate entirely too much to leave....I read some of your blogs. I am impressed with your knowledge....maybe not with your conclusions so much...but I see you have at least investigated the matter. This impresses me. Have you read Psalm 22? Isaiah 53? We know the manuscripts date before Christ. How do you explain that away?

I do not have a personal blog. Are you referring to my posts on forum? Thanks. I try. I’m not sure I have come to any hard and fast "conclusions" as you seem to feel I have. I don’t believe any one of us has been able to accomplish this. That is the difference between the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint and the scientific method. We NEVER cease to test and question our theories. We seek to further bolster them and substantiate our assertions. We actually invite, debate, argument, and even downright rejection. That is how we expand and grow. In my personal opinion, the absolute worst mistake one can make when addressing any questionable premise is to say, well that’s it and I’m right. This is irrefutable evidence to support my position. The end. That is what I took issue with in your comment.

Just curious. What are your feelings on human evolution and the now widely accepted premise of anthropogenesis? When was the last time you researched this topic? How would you explain these findings?

jessee11,




A belief is neither right or wrong, its just a belief. I approach information in a non-emotional investigative point of view. I evaluate all information and consider that all information has value.

You believe in the story written in the New Testament. I don't believe it. It is as simple at that.

*************************

I have concluded that the New Testament is a lie and a plagiarist's forgery.

I base my conclusions on several sources to include writings of "Flavius Josephus" who was alleged to be a Jewish priest, soldier, scholar and Jewish general called Joseph ben Mattathias. (That is the official version of who Flavius Josephus was.)

In any case, whoever "Flavius Josephus" was, many of his writings are clearly plagiarized (or retold and rewritten) from earlier scriptures and the "Old Testament."

I believe it is possible that Flavius Josephus was a pen name for Calpurnius Piso who may have based the character on a real person called Joseph ben Mattathias. (However it is highly possible that Joseph ben Mattatias was not even a real person.)

It is obvious that writers back then plagiarized a lot of writings and had very little original imagination, so that is why I suspect they took real people and embellished them into different characters for their stories much like writers do today.

We know that the Piso family were Roman aristocrats with a lot of power and influence in that day and very connected.

There are other people who suspect that the New Testament was fabricated.

Other sources for my conclusions are:

Sources:
S. Angus, The Mystery Religions (Dover Books, 1975)
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries (Thorsons, 1999)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Yale, 1984)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)
Acharya S. The Christ Conspiracy (Adventures, 1999)
Michael Walsh, Roots of Christianity (Grafton, 1986)
Peter Roberts, In Search of Early Christian Unity (Vantage, 1985)
Robert L. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings (SCM Press, 1971)

************************

One source claims he knows who wrote the books:

The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin

“The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.”

You can see more details and information in my other thread on this subject here in the religion forum.

Jeannie

Why even waste time on an extremist who likens unbelievers to cockroaches? Isn't it obvious, despite his equivocations, he's here to pontificate and denigrate, not debate? Watch, he won't apologize for the statement because he arrogantly thinks he has the only correct method of belief in his constructed false dichotomy. He won't come right out and say it, but like any Fundy, he thinks disbelief in his religion is an moral failure and therefore the unbeliever herself is evil.



-Kerry O.

***Just believe in yourself, that is all you need.****

Remember the bible is written by man and has been changed over the years.

I’m also not totally of the belief that Jesus Christ died for anyone's sins per se. I think he was a brilliant public speaker and went around visiting with all of these villagers and got them on board with his teachings and philosophies (which were not new by the way).

Then he was sold out by Judas. I don’t think he wanted to die nailed to a cross. Who would? That’s a bad way to go.

Clearly - YOU are wrong. Examine the text in a little more detail - rather than attempting to use it to support your pretext. There is the creation account of Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 1:27. Then we have the first verse in Genesis 2:

:Thus the heavens and the earth were COMPLETED in all their vast array (Emphasis mine)

Done. Finished. Completed. No more creating to be done. God didn't forget anything.

Now you have God resting and we come to vrse 4:

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN they were created. (emphasis mine)

Past tense. Already happened.

You now have a more detailed account of creation - focusing on the account of man - detailing the creation of Adam and Eve in more detail - leading to the fall and beyond.

One creation - two perspectives.

It speaks nothing about the man and woman created simultaniously in Genesis one - just tht they were created. The detail comes after. This is just an example of your creating a pretext of two creations and assuming the context of what is written to fit your premise. Totally ignoring the first verse of chapter 2. Therefore your pretext is rejectable. Correct exegesis points to your interpretation as being incorrect - not the text itself.

Well - I've yet to see you come in here and get all bent out of shape about anything other thn Christianity, so I thought I'd introduce you to a whole new world of things to rail against.

Evolution not a religion? Right. Belief in a system of events based on a book of fairytales
(Origin of the species I believe it's called) with nothing but subjective proof to support it. Sounds like a religion to me.

As to Hitler being a Christian. Not. He was heavily into the New Age and based his beliefs on "Survival of the fittest" - the Aryan race being the top of the food chain. I would think that Bonnhoffer would find your claim of his being a Christian quite laughable.

As to Judism, Chriatianity, and Islam being the same religion. That's like saying a wolf, a Cayote and a Dog are all the same creature. Sure, they all have 4 legs - but their similarities end there. The Muslims do not worship the same God I do - they worship the one who spoke to Mohammed - who was not the God of scripture. If I'm not mistaken - it was the God of Pantheism. A dice roller. Mohammed always rolled the dice when he needed approval to change something to accomidate his lifestyle.

Could you supply a detailed account of the changes from the present version we have to the texts found - say - just from the dead sea scrolls? There are theologians all over the world awaiting this new revelation - because they haven't seemed to have discovered them.

ELJAY:

First of all - The bible does not describe an account of man being created on two different occasions. Man was created once - it was Adam, and Eve from Adam's rib. That is the correct exegesis of the creation account. Any supposition of a creation before A&E has no textual proof using the scriptures to support it.

TRIBO:

And why would all their childern leave everyone and everything they knew and go to the land of nod? .[wandering]
Was that a custom taught them by their parents? if so it sure didn't stick for very long according to whats later seen of jewish/isrealite life historically.[wandering]

i think it does support two creations of mankind, i think that god created man and women in gen. 1 and then created adam and eve in gen. 2 - i think all the races were created in gen 1, >>>BUT<<< the race that would eventually be the people of the rest of the story for the remainder of the jewish books.

The first or bulk of mankind IMO, were created because it states that they were made as all the other animals and life were - by god >> speaking them into existence<< "let us make man in our image" - with what were to become his >>>chosen people<<< - he made them from the earth. it states very clearly that adam and eve were made a certain way - from first the elements of the earth and then from a rib - again in 1 it states he made them by >>speaking them into existence<< as he made the heavens and earth and all else. The purpose? to seperate the extras from the main players in his desires to save mankind. first he populates with extras - all the races outside of what will become israel, then he crates from the earth and the rib of adam eve who will be them which will bring forth the savior.

You leave out IMO - the ""pretext"" of GOD HAVING PUT INTO AFFECT a theme of a >>"chosen people"<< A people unto himself! this theme starts with god making his chosen ones to start telling / building the rest of the story around - pretty common in all stories is a main theme and main characters. In this instance it was a particular people which god created for the purpose of being the ones who would eventually give rise to jesus.

The rest of mankind are what today would be concidered "EXTRAS" i use this analogy for you larry, since i know your into theatre.

Funny how outside man/gen. >1< man - is not mentioned here, but to me it is not surprising there is no need for all the others and types and races to be mentioned till the need arises and that need did not arise till after cain killed Abel, then he must leave to a land of wanderings.

Now we have a reason to bring the others into the scenario. Now Cain the killer needs a wife - and he finds one among the non necessary [for christ sake] Genesis > 1 < woman, the rest of the type 1 disposable extras, that god brought forth to eventually use for his purposes of destruction as the book unravels its purpose of bringing god/jesus on the scene in act 2 scene 1.

After all what is the main purpose of A&E? to bring forth a race that will eventually produce a virgin who will be imprenated by a spirit that will bring forth a man/god correct?

Now i'm sure you will raise the question of original sin and how its been put upon all by A&E's disobedience correct? well again as you keep trtying to make your point it was for the jews only, not the rest of creation - the whole thing is about the jews and god, the other players are only as i said extras.

you keep taking the bible to be universal - i don't i see it as having context only within the people who wrote it and were called and made and believe they are the chosen people of god. not until part 2 act 1 scene one does it begin to deal with anything other than gods chosen people and really not till much later are ones outside the jews even mentioned til then even jesus recognizes them >>dogs<< correct?

Now do you have to agree with my opinion? nope - but it makes more biblical sense to me than interbreeding ever will. To interbreeding You say nope, it was only for the jews - i say yep because the jews were Adam and Eves decendents or in every way jews/isrealites, what was wrong at the beginning as to incest would have to be all along otherwise god knew he was letting sin abound by not telling them it was wrong. you can't use leviticus to say it was wrong for the israelites as to incest then and not have to wonder why? if incest is wrong its wrong always, be it for them or others. sin does not have a starting point that one can say - no it was not sin then because - blash, blah - either sin is sin or its not! if god put upon them in leviticus that it was sin always! god knew from the beginning it was sin -IMO.



Whether A&E had other children besides the 3 mentioned in the first chapters of GEN. can not explain away the word replenish as to re-populating the earth, repopulating means just that - populate again. In that sense i take it that others were their before adam and Eve. it's only those who follow after futurist theology and and other man made theology to CTA, that one can agree with changing or making it believed that Fill - is the right choice for replenish. though god made mankind twice it does not state how many were made the first time - i believe there were probably few - enough to represent the different races at most and they were scattered on the land - thus - nod- a place of wandering - nomads - un-necessary in gods plan of salvation except to show his judgement to those he chose - A&E and their decendents - sound bigoted? - dont blame me i did not not write it! if anyones to blame blame god and moses or the real authors of the words. I think everyone can see he thought little of the rest of mankind except for those that fit his plan and purposes. i will be more than happy to continue if you like but it will not solve anything nor get me past where i am - you will believe as you will and i also. but i'll defend your right to be wrong larry -

Not possible, my friend.

guesswork is all that mere beliefs represent.

Knowledge of God is by direct communication.

If truth were sought, I know that those that believe in the guesses suppositioned upon scriptural truths would have come to that reality already.

But then, belief without revelation of truth is always a guess, at best.

Revisionism of scriptural truth would require a revelation of the truth in order to taint the truth and revise it in presentation through machinating contrivances upon it.

They cannot do that without the truth, which would prevent such audacity.

The truth remains intact for all while they continue to guess.

I would like to know why they are motivated to believe in their guesses too, as do you.

Do inquiring minds wish to know the truth, or just fabricate excuses for not pursuing truth?

It remains to be seen of those hazarding guesses while the clock ticks out the available time given each man to know.

It is permissible for me to use the actual text to support my assertion that there are indeed two contradictory versions of Genesis. Why would that not be allowed? Do tell?

The first account of genesis explains the Earth was created in 6 days, with a day of rest on the 7th. The second account or later version of the two clearly states that the Earth and the universe were created in ONE day. God did both at the same time on one day. How do you account for this exactly? Once again, as with Leviticus, I am asking you to LOOK at what is actually written not what you think might explain it in your own head. Why would there even need to be two versions? That alone is understandably a little suspicious.

(Genesis 2:4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…)

You are clearly off on the creation of man and woman. That is a big problem there.

The creation of man and woman. According to Genesis 1:27 man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


Then later, when presumably this concept that man and woman were in some respect to be considered egalitarian, would not further the interest of Christianity as a whole, we now have this new version written:

Genesis 2:20-22

The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman

She is to be a rib taken from Adam which of course implies that man was created first. BIG CHANGE HERE. Then we get into Lilith also but I’m sure you won’t dare attempt to explain the actual first wife of Adam.

You must keep in mind here that the advent of Christianity was during a period of time where humans were Pagan and had been observing Earth/Goddess oriented spirituality dating as far back as the Neolithic. In order for these new stories to have some kind of impact on these people, these early writers of the scriptures would have HAD to stay in line with the already existent beliefs of the time. They would have gone along with the idea that man and woman were created as equals. They would have taken issue with the idea that one is to be considered superior to the other. Or a “handmaiden” in some respect. However if this religion was to take control of the people successfully, certain concepts would need to be driven home and one would be we are DONE with any mention of Earth as mother or female as giver of life. It’s now to be this male god up in the clouds who gets credit for the creating of life. Get used to it or it will be enforced by the blade as needed.

I would suggest to all those using the English language to interpret the bible and its meanings to remember that you are working off various translations s well as The King James VERSION... the exact texts from which modern scripture is based on were written in hebrew, greek and translated into latin. Not to mention that many of the ancient illustrated manuscripts were "copied" by illiterate monks, who were actually "drawing" the letters they saw ..leaving the possibilities of typos and other errors wide open..

The words you are using to interpret, are in themselves interpretation of other MEN and not really the LORDS words..it would appear god didnt speak english... thus rendering these types of "debates" an exercise in futility, at least in my humble opinion.

Hitler only claimed to be Christian, just like George W Bush claims to be Christian. In truth, they laugh and joke about Christianity.

In truth, they worship the red dragon and belong to secret societies ultimately controlled by Satan himself... if you believe in Satan, which I don't. So in reality, the cult of the red dragon is ruled by ... you guessed it Draconian aliens.

Which if you ever saw one, you would swear you were looking at Satan himself.

THE TRUTH ABOUT HITLER:

Back to Hitler, he USED Christianity and the Catholic Church to aid him in his battle against the Jews, which the Catholic Church was only so happy to do.

THE HITLER PROJECT:

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1


(http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm)

WHAT HAPPENED TO HITLER:

Hitler and a few of his top aids escaped to South America with the help of the Catholic Church, where he lived to the ripe old age of 95 disguised as a priest. He left behind him, a look-a-like who was identified as him. It wasn't.

Here is some Internet information on that same theory:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile18.htm


****************
Throw out everything you think you know about history. Close the approved textbooks, turn off the corporate mass media, and whatever you do, don't believe anything you hear from the government—The Rise of the Fourth Reich reveals the truth about American power. In this explosive new book, the legendary Jim Marrs, author of the underground bestseller Rule by Secrecy, reveals the frighteningly real possibility that today the United States is becoming the Fourth Reich, the continuation of an ideology thought to have been vanquished more than a half century ago.

Read the book: The Rise of the Fourth Reich By Jim Marrs


Jeanniebean

Ordained Minister

Rev. High Priestess of the First Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

No such thing Wouldee. If this were true there would be no clinging to the Bible. People would just toss it out and listen to the voices in their heads or burning bushes or whatever.

Are you listening to those voices in your head again or communicating with aliens?

Do you ever experience any missing time? Have you ever been abducted by aliens?

JB

exactly.

God must be sought directly to know the truth.

everything else about belief alone is guesses up to that point.

One can know that Jesus is the LORD.

Or just believe it without doing what the LORD gave us to which is to be born again.

That is the only truth to be known.

All beliefs stopping short of the personal responsibility given man to know is but guesses and conjecture.

In English, Hebrew or Greek or any other language, the truth can be known or it can be suspended in belief which in fact is supension of belief if faith is not applied from the heart to be inviting of the truth through a revelation of truth which only comes one way, and that way is through Jesus Christ alone by way of being born of His Spirit only.